COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. CHHAGAN LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue, by these four applications made under Section 27(5) of the Wealth-tax Act, has prayed that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to state the case and refer the following identical question of law in all the four cases for the opinion of the High Court :

(2.) THE assessees, Chhagan Lal Gupta, Bhanwar Lal Gupta, Vidhya Sagar Gupta and Sunder Lal Gupta are the co-owners of the factory called "Jindal General Manufacturing Company" situated at C-92, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. All the co-owners filed their separate returns under the Wealth-tax Act for various years. THE Wealth-tax Officer accepted the total value of the suit property at Rs. 36,54,000 in each of the years under consideration on the basis of the report of the Departmental approved Valuation Officer. Dissatisfied with the orders passed by the Assessing Officer assessing the assessees on a higher value, the assessees preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals). THE five appeals filed by the assessees were decided by the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) by a common order and the appeals filed by the assessees were partly allowed. THE assessees aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), filed appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, and the Tribunal, by its order dated September 12, 1994, allowed the appeals filed by the assessees and remanded the case to the assessing authority to reassess the assessees and determine the value of the property as per the amended rules contained in Schedule III to the Act. THE Revenue thereafter moved applications under Section 27(1) of the Act to refer the above question of law in all the cases for the opinion of the High Court. THE Tribunal, by its order dated July 5, 1995, dismissed all the applications under Section 27(1) of the Act filed by the Revenue by a common order and refused to refer the question mentioned in the applications because the question of law, which is sought to be referred by the Revenue, already stands decided by the judgment of the Supreme Court and as such no referable question of law arises fit for reference to the High Court.

(3.) AFTER the remand, the matters are pending before the assessing authority for adjudication and the valuation of the property has to be made in accordance with Schedule III of the Act. The amendment with regard to the procedure or of evidence are to be construed as retrospective and applies to all the pending matters on the dates when the amendment was made unless there is a specific indication that such was not the intention of the Legislature. The controversy in the present case stands concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup and Sons [1994] 210 ITR 886. It has been held by the apex court in this case that (headnote) "rule 1BB partakes of the character of a rule of evidence. It deems the market value to be the one arrived at on the application of a particular method of valuation which is also one of the recognised and accepted methods. The rule is procedural and not substantive and is applicable to all proceedings pending on April 1, 1979, when the rule came into force. The procedural law, generally speaking, is applicable to pending cases. No suitor can be said to have a vested right in procedure".