COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. VARDHMAN POLYTEX LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed by the revenue under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (for brevity the Act) is directed against order dated 17 -1 -2006 in respect of assessment year 1998 -99 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench A, Chandigarh (for brevity the Tribunal) in WTA No. 30/Chd/2005 for the assessment year 1998 -99. The revenue has claimed that following substantive question of law would arise for determination of this Court:

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the assessee -respondent filed its return of wealth for the assessment year 1998 -99 on 30 -11 -1998 which was processed under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act vide order dated 15 -9 -1999 without making any adjustment to the WT return. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed the value of the plot at Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana measuring 2,005.12 sq. yds. which was claimed to be @ Rs. 3,000 per sq. yd. The total value of the plot reflected in the assessment order was Rs. 75,37,500. The assessing officer asked the assessee -respondent to explain the lower rate as compared to the value determined by the DVO in the case of Sh. Sanjay Jain @ Rs. 5,000 per sq. yard. The assessee filed its reply to the notice. The explanation was not accepted by the assessing officer and the matter was referred to the DVO, IT Department who determined the value of the plot at Rs. 1,76,33,330. Accordingly the value of the plot was taken at Rs. 1,76,33,330 against the declared value of Rs. 75,37,500. The assessee preferred an appeal by arguing that the DVO did not give any basis for making assessment at such an exorbitant rate whereas the prevailing rates were much less. However, the Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana vide order dated 1 -6 -2005 (A.2) confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer. The assessee further filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order dated 1 -6 -2005 (A.2) of Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana by holding as under:

(3.) MR . Akshay Bhan, learned Counsel for the assessee -respondent has submitted that there cannot be any dispute with the aforesaid proposition. He has argued that the question of law may be answered in favour of the revenue and the matter be remitted back to the Tribunal for deciding the issue on merits.