COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. SUNDER LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue, by this application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, has prayed that the Tribunal may be directed to state the case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court :

(2.) THE controversy and the dispute in this petition relates to the valuation of the share of the assessee in an immovable property, namely, "Jindal General Manufacturing Company, Delhi" which is situated at C-92, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. THE assessee was assessed for his share in this property at Rs. 16,19,000 in each year of assessment by the Wealth-tax Officer on the basis of the report of the District Valuation Officer (sic). THE District Valuation Officer valued the suit property at a higher value. According to the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, the valuation arrived at by the Wealth-tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue because the District Valuation Officer has valued the suit property at a substantially higher figure. THE Commissioner of Wealth-tax, therefore, exercising his power under Section 25(2) of the Act, set aside the assessment and directed the Wealth-tax Officer to make assessment afresh according to law taking into consideration the report of the District Valuation Officer and after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee-appellant. THE assessee and the other co-owners preferred appeals before the Tribunal and the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and directed the Assessing Officer that while making a fresh assessment in compliance with the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, the Wealth-tax Officer shall value the share of the assessee in the said joint property as per the amended rules contained in Schedule III to the Act after giving proper opportunity of being heard to them. THEreafter, the Revenue moved an application under Section 27(1) of the Act for referring the above question of law for the opinion of the High Court. THE said application was dismissed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal declined to refer the question for the opinion of the High Court.