LAWS(RAJ)-1990-7-12

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. KANCHAN BAI BADER

Decided On July 23, 1990
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX Appellant
V/S
KANCHAN BAI BADER, Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three wealth-tax reference applications under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the assessment year 1977-78 arising out of wealth-tax appeals. The Tribunal rejected the applications under Section 27(1) of the Act. According to the Revenue, the following questions of law arise out of the order of the Wealth-tax Appellate Tribunal. It has been prayed by the Department that the Tribunal may be directed to refer these questions of law to this court :

(2.) THE assessee is maintaining its books of account according to the Deewali year. THE return of wealth was submitted in which the valuation of the stock of the firm of which the assessee is a partner was disclosed on the basis of the purchase price. According to the Revenue, no proof in support of the purchase price was submitted. In the trading account of the firm of which the assessee is a partner, the gross profit rate was disclosed at more than 20 per cent. THE Wealth-tax Officer, prima facie, being satisfied with the valuation of the stock, had given an opportunity to the assessee to show cause as to why the stock should not be evaluated by adding the profit as disclosed on the admitted facts of the assessee-firm. THE plea of the assessee was that the provisions of Rule 2B(2) are not applicable. THE Wealth-tax Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and held that the provisions of Rule 2B(2) are applicable and determined the market value of the stock which was more than 20 per cent. THE assessee preferred an appeal which was allowed and the additions were deleted. THE Revenue, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which was also rejected. THEreafter, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 27(1) of the Act which was also rejected and hence, the present applications have been filed under Section 27(3) of the Act.

(3.) IN the result, we do not find any force in these applications. These applications are dismissed without any order as to costs.