High Court Of Rajasthan
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. Shyam Mohan Rawat
Sections WT Rule 1BB, WT Rule 2B(2)
Y.R. Meena & Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.
DB WT Ref. No. 33 of 1988
1st July, 2002
Counsel Appeared: Anuroop Singhi, for the Petitioner: J.K. Ranka, for the Assessee
JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT :
On an application under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the WTO to arrive at the value of the immovable property by applying r. 1BB and further in directing if the value arrived at by applying r. 1BB does not exceed the value as per the books by 20 per cent, then he shall not apply r. 2B(2) in respect of immovable property?” At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee Mr. Ranka submits that now the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble apex Court in the case of CWT vs. Shravan Kumar Swaroop & Sons (1994) 122 CTR (SC) 380 : (1994) 210 ITR 886 (SC), wherein their Lordships have taken the view that r. 1BB is procedural and has a retrospective effect. This rule provides the method for valuing a house wholly or mainly used for residential purpose and when choice is given, the value of the property can be ascertained by applying r. 1BB of the WT Rules, 1957. Mr. Ranka further submits that by applying r. 1BB, the value of the property as per books does not exceed by 20 per cent, therefore, r. 2B(2) has also no application. Considering the submissions, which have not been controverted by counsel for the Revenue, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. In the result, we answer the question in affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Reference so made stands disposed of accordingly.
[Citation : 258 ITR 711]
