C W T JODHPUR vs. AK SANGHI JODHPUR

PDF · subscribers
WTA/6/2006HC RajasthanRJHC01014563200518 May 2006Bench: RAJESH BALIA,RAJENDRA PRASAD VYAS2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that nine appeals relating to assessment years 1985-86 to 1989-90 had been decided by the ITAT. It further observed that eight appeals against the very same ITAT judgment had been preferred for different assessment years, out of which six appeals were dismissed by the High Court vide an order dated September 20, 2004. Subsequently, two more appeals, D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 2/2005 and D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 8/2005, were also dismissed by the High Court, finding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Following this consistent line of reasoning and precedent established in the earlier dismissed appeals, the High Court concluded that the present appeal also failed to raise a substantial question of law and was therefore dismissed. The specific findings of the ITAT on the valuation of the cinema buildings were not detailed in the judgment, nor was the reasoning of the ITAT explicitly discussed, as the High Court's decision was based on the procedural history and the lack of a substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

This appeal by the Revenue is against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, dated November 1, 2004, concerning Wealth Tax Appeal No. 8/JDPR/2004 for the assessment year 1985-86. The ITAT had confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) [CWT(A)]. The dispute pertains to the valuation of two cinema buildings. The Revenue's contention was that the assessing officer had estimated the value as per Rule 20 of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Rules, based on a valuation determined under Section 16A, arguing that Rule 3 of Schedule III was not applicable to cinema buildings. The High Court noted that nine appeals relating to assessment years 1985-86 to 1989-90 had been decided by the ITAT. Eight appeals against the same ITAT judgment for different assessment years had already been dismissed by the High Court, with two specific appeals (D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 2/2005 and D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 8/2005) also being dismissed for not raising a substantial question of law.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in confirming the order of the CWT(A) by ignoring the fact that the assessing officer estimated the value as per Rule 20 of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Rules on the basis of valuation determined on reference under Section 16A, in view of the fact that the properties in question are two cinema buildings and their valuation cannot be made in accordance with Rule 3 of Schedule III? 2. Whether the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are contrary to law and facts and perverse? Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee. The ITAT had confirmed the order of the CWT(A). Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the assessing officer correctly estimated the value of the cinema buildings as per Rule 20 of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Rules, based on a valuation under Section 16A, and that Rule 3 of Schedule III was not applicable to cinema buildings. The Revenue contended that the ITAT's order was erroneous in confirming the CWT(A)'s order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 16A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

D.B. WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.06/2006 Date :: 18.05.2006 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRASAD VYAS Mr.Sangeet Lodha, for the appellant. This is appeal by revenue. The following substantial questions of law are stated to be arising for consideration in this appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dated 01.11.2004. The appeal is directed against the Wealth Tax Appeal No.8/JDPR/2004 relating to assessment year 1985-86. The following substantial questions o flaw arises for consideration as under:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in confirming the order of CWT(A) ignoring the fact that the assessing officer estimated the value as per Rule 20 of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Rules on the basis of valuation determined on reference under Section 16A in view of the fact that the properties in question are two cinema building and their valuation cannot be made in accordance with Rule 3 of the Schedule III? (ii) Whether the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are contrary to law and facts and perverse?” By the judgment under appeal the nine appeals relating to assessment year 1985-86 to 1989-90 had been decided by the Tribunal. Against the very same judgment of the Tribunal

eight appeals were preferred in respect of different assessment years and out of which six appeals were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20th September, 2004. Thereafter, D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No.2/2005 and D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No.8/2005 were also dismissed finding that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, this appeal also fails and is hereby dismissed. [R.P. VYAS],J. [RAJESH BALIA],J. Ashwini/-

More judgments on Section 16A

All 30 judgments and leading authorities on Section 16A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →