COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX vs. ANILKUMAR MANILAL VIRANI

PDF · subscribers

WTR/46/1994HC GujaratGJHC24020471199403 August 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question referred to it was to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. This decision was based on the established fact that an identical question, arising from the Tribunal's earlier decision in the assessee's own case concerning the same property, had already been decided by the High Court in favour of the assessee. The Court referenced its prior judgment in Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Anilkumar M. Virani, [2002] 258 ITR 81, which had concluded the controversy. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in its direction to the WTO to adopt the value of Rs. 217,400 as per Section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The reference was disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

This case involves a Wealth Tax Reference filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Wealth-tax) against the assessee (Anilkumar Manilal Virani) for the assessment year 1984-85. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', had directed the Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) to adopt a specific value of Rs. 217,400 for a house. The Tribunal's decision was based on its earlier ruling in the assessee's own case concerning the same property. The High Court noted that an identical question arising from that earlier decision had already been decided in favour of the assessee by a previous High Court judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the WTO to adopt the value of Rs. 217,400 in respect of the house in question as per the provisions of section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee. However, the High Court's decision implies that the assessee's position, as upheld by the Tribunal and a prior High Court ruling, was that the value of Rs. 217,400 was correctly adopted. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its Standing Counsel, sought to challenge the Tribunal's direction regarding the valuation of the house. The Revenue's argument is implicit in the reference of the question to the High Court, questioning the correctness of the Tribunal's decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 7(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

WTR/46/1994 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No.46 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd/- HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Sd/- ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX - Applicant(s) Versus ANILKUMAR MANILAL VIRANI - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MRS MM BHATT for MR RP BHATT for Applicant No(s).: 1. NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent No(s).: 1. ========================================================= CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 03/08/2005

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI)

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following question under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (the Act) at the instance of the Revenue.

WTR/46/1994 2/3 JUDGMENT “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the WTO to adopt the value of Rs.217400/- in respect of the house in question as per the provisions of section 7(4) of the W.T.Act, 1957 ?” The Assessment Year is 1984-85. 2. Heard Ms.M.M.Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant – Revenue. The respondent – assessee is not served. However, considering the view that the Court is inclined to take in the matter, it is not necessary to await service.

As can be seen from the order dated 16.08.1993 of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has followed its earlier decision in the assessee's own case involving the same property reported in [1988] 32 TTJ (Ahd) 258. It is an accepted position that an identical question arising from the said decision had been referred to this Court, which has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, by a decision reported in Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Anilkumar M. Virani, [2002] 258 ITR 81. WTR/46/1994 3/3 JUDGMENT

Considering the fact that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the aforesaid decision, it is not necessary to set out the facts of the case in detail.

In light of the aforesaid decision, the question referred to this Court is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. [ D.A. MEHTA, J ] [ H.N. DEVANI, J ] *** Bhavesh*

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →