COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. ANURAG BAGARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : This wealth-tax reference under S. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 ('the Act') has been made at the instance of the Revenue. The following question has been referred for opinion of this Court:--

(2.) IN this case a minor represented by his father and natural guardian, having the valuation date of March 31 for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1982-83, was assessed in the status of individual under s. 16(3) of the Act. The assessee was holding certain number of shares in certain companies. Those shares were not the subject of dealing in recognised stock exchanges. They were also not shares in investment companies or in any managing agency company. Those were called unquoted equity shares which were in the nature of shares held by the assessee. He held about 1,900 shares of Steels worth Ltd. Value of which was shown by the assessee as Rs. 3,58,100, Rs. 3,43,900 and Rs. 3,28,700, respectively, for the assessment years in question. The WTO worked out the break-up value as per the WT Rules, 1957 and assessed the value of 1,900 shares at Rs. 4,14,485, Rs. 4,60,978 and Rs. 5,13,570, respectively, for the assessment years in question. The assessee, being aggrieved, went in appeal before the ACC, Dibrugarh Range, Dibrugarh. The AAC following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CWT vs. Ashok K. Parikh (1981) 129 ITR 46 held that for the purpose of computation of the market value of the shares of the company, advance tax paid under S. 212 and shown on the assets side of the balance -sheet of the company could not be deducted from the tax payable in determining whether the provisions for taxation was in excess of tax payable with reference to the book profits. The AAC, accordingly, over directed the WTO to recompute the break-up value of each share of the said company Steels worth P. Ltd. on the basis of his observation for all the years. The Revenue went in appeal against the said order of the AAC before the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, at the instance of the Revenue, the above question has been referred to this Court for opinion.

(3.) ON the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.