LexCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX versus M/S. SHRAVAN KUMAR SWARUP AND SONS, ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX v. MJS. SHRAVAN KUMAR SWARUP AND SONS, ETC. ETC. SEPTEMBER 22, 1994 B (M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ, S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] : Wealth Tax Rules 1957, Rule lBB-Whether it affects the substantive rights of the assessee or is merely procedural-Whether the Rules partakes of C the character of a mle of evidenc~Whether the said mle lBB applies to all proceedings pending its enactment. The 'Respondent assessee was a Hindu Undivided family. For the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 the assessments were made on 8.2.1983. Before that date rule lBB had been introduced into the Rules on D 1.4.1979 which provided the tnode of valuation of house property wholly or mainly used for residential purposes, for the purpose of ascertaing that net wealth under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The assessee contended that immovable properties should be valued by applying the said Rule on even though the assessments in question pertained to the period prior to 1.4.1979. The Wealth Tax Officer proceeded to value the properties inde· E pendently of Rule lBB, The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) held in favour of the applicability of Rule lBB. On appeal by the Revenue before the Income Tax Tribunal, Ah· medabad, the Tribunal upheld the Order of the Commissioner of Wealth F Tax (Appeals). Thereafter, the Revenue sought a reference under Sec. 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act in respect of both the assessment years. The Tribunal referred for the opinion of the High Court the question whether Rule lBB could be applied to compute the value the properties for the relevant assessment years though Rule l·BB came into force from April 1, 1979 only. The High Court, following its earlier decision in commissioner G of Wealth Tax v. Shri Kasturbhai Mayabhai, 164 ITR 107, answered the question against the Revenue and held that Rule lBB was applicable. In the appeal filed by the Revenue against the said decision the question raised was whether Rule l·BB is a provision which affects or alters the substantive rights or it is merely a procedure. Further, sequential question H that was raised was whether Rule 1-BB is attracted to all proceedings 750 ... COMMNR. OFW.T. v. S.KSWARUP AND SONS 751 pending at its enactment. These questions also fell for consideration in a A number of appeals and special leave petitions which were all heard together. Dismissing the appeals and special leave petitions, this Court HELD: 1. Rule lBB of the Wealth Tax Rules merely provides a choice B amongst well-known and well-settled modes of valuation. Even in the absence of Rule lBB it would not have been objectionable, nor would there have been a legal impediment to adopt the mode of valuation embodied in it, namely the method of capitalising of income on a number of years' purchase value. The Rule was intended to impart uniformity in valuations C and to avoid vagaries and disparities resulting from application of dif· ferent modes of valuation. [760-F] 2. Rule lBB thus 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 D accepted methods. [760-G] 3. Rule lBB, being essentially a rule of evidence is procedural in nature. A procedural law, generally speaking, is difficult to pending cases since no similar case be said to have a vested right in procedure. [761-C-D] Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Shri Kasturbhai, 164 ITR 107; Com- missioner of Wealth Tax v. Naranjan Narottam, 173 ITR 693; Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Vidyawathi Kapur, 150 ITR 319; Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Lacchmandas Bhatia, 163 ITR 586; Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. O.P. Tandon, 195 ITR 688:Manjushri Biswas v. CWT, 171 ITR348 andDilip Kr. Mitra v. CWT, 200 ITR 336, approved. Izhar Ahmed Khan v. Union of India, [1962) Supp. 3 SCR 235; Kesoram Industries v. CWT, 59 ITR 767; Murari Lal Mahabir Prasad & others E F v. B.R. Ved & others, 37 STC 77;Associated Cement Compariy Ltd. v. CT01 Kota, 48 STC 466; Jose Da Costa v. Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim & G others, [1976) 2 sec 917, relied upon. Maxwell v. Murphy (1957) 96 CLR 261; Republic of Costa Rica v. Elanger, (1876) 3 ChD 62; WH. Cockerline & Co. v. CIR 16 TC 1; Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn.; Vol. 23, para 29 and Vol. 44, para 925; Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn. p. 1203; Salmond in Jurispmdence, 12th Edn. p. H ) .752 ' \ S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.