COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. BADAR K C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all the above-mentioned wealth-tax reference applications filed under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for brevity " the Act"), common questions have been raised, and, therefore, they are decided by a common order.

(2.) IN D. B. Civil Wealth-tax Reference Application No, 21 of 1991, it has been stated that the asscssee is a partner of M/s. K. D. Javeri, who exported goods outside INdia. The value of goods which has been shown in the export invoice was reduced by the assessee without proving that those goods were received back or were sold subsequently at a lesser price. The Wealth-tax Officer, invoking the provisions of Rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, made the addition in the closing stock for the year of assessment 1982-83 (annexure-1) on account of failure of the assessee to furnish the information in spite of opportunity given for this purpose. The assessee preferred an appeal whereupon the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) deleted the addition made by the Wealth-tax Officer, vide annexure-2. The petitioner submitted a second appeal to the Tribunal, but the Tribunal also rejected the appeal, vide judgment dated June 7, 1989. D. B. Wealth-tax Reference Application No. 22 of 1991 is regarding the assessment year 1983-84 of the same firm in which also the order of the Wealth-tax Officer who made additions by invoking the provisions of Rule 2B(2) in the closing stock on account of the same reason mentioned above was deleted by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) and a second appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal. D. B. Wealth-tax Reference Application No. 23 of 1991 is also regarding another partner of the same firm for the assessment year 1981-82 in which the Wealth-tax Officer, invoking the provisions of Rule 2B(2), made additions in the closing stock due to the same reason mentioned above. The appeal preferred by the non-petitioner was accepted by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) who deleted the additions made by the Wealth-tax Officer. The second appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal. D. B. Wealth tax Reference Application No. 24 of 1991 is also regarding a partner of the same firm for the assessment year 1983-84. The Wealth-tax Officer on account of the same reasons mentioned above, invoking the provisions of Rule 2B(2), made additions in the closing account. The appeal of the non-petitioner against the said order was accepted by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) who deleted the addition made by the Wealth-tax Officer. The second appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal. D. B. Wealth-tax Reference Application No. 25 of 1991 is regarding another partner of the same firm for the assessment year 1981-82, in which the Wealth-tax Officer, invoking the provisions of Rule 2B(2), made additions in the closing stock for the same reasons mentioned above. IN the appeal filed by the non-petitioner, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) deleted the addition made by the Wealth-tax Officer. The second appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal.

(3.) AS a result of the above discussion and on the basis of the reasoning in the case of Moti Chand Daga [1988] 174 ITR 379 (Raj), it must be held that the Tribunal's view is justified. Consequently, the references are answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, by holding that the Tribunal's view in the order dated June 7, 1989 (annexure-3), is justified.