Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that r. 2B(2) of the WT Rules was not applicable in the assessee’s case and consequently in deleting the addition made by the WTO ?

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench

Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. Prakash Chand Surana

Sections WT 27(3), WT 5(1)(xxxii), WT 5(1)(xxxiii), WT RULE 2B(2)

S.C. Agrawal & Mohini Kapur, JJ.

WT Ref. Appln. No. 114 of 1988

6th July, 1989

Counsel Appeared

V. K. Singhal, for the Revenue : T. C. Jain, for the Assessee

BY THE COURT :

This is an application under s. 27(3) of the WT Act by the CWT for directing the Tribunal to refer certain questions of law said to arise out of the Tribunal’s order dt. 25th March, 1988, to this Court for its decision.

Shri Singhal, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that these questions arise in other cases also and this Court has passed various orders on reference applications under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, directing the Tribunal to refer these questions to this Court for its decision. In support of this submission, Shri Singhal has placed before us copies of orders dt. 24th May, 1988, in D. B. WT Ref. No. 19 of 1988 (CWT vs. Smt. Jatan Devi.) and D. B. WT Ref. Application No. 86 of 1988, (CWT vs. L. K. Kasliwal).

Shri T. C. Jain, learned counsel for the assessee, has submitted that in so far as the question with regard to the applicability of r. 2B(2) of the WT Rules, 1957, is concerned, there is a decision of this Court in CWT vs. Moti Chand Daga (1988) 174 ITR 379, wherein the said question has been decided against the Revenue and in view of the said decision, the said question with regard to the applicability of r. 2B(2) does not need further consideration by this Court.

Shri Singhal has further submitted that in the case of Moti Chand Daga (supra), this Court has observed that the burden which has been placed on the Revenue by r. 2B(2) of the WT Rules, can be discharged by the facts and circumstances and having regard to the material produced by the assessee and, thus, in view of the said decision of this Court, it would be open to the Revenue to discharge the burden from the facts and circumstances and having regard to the material produced by the assessee. Shri Singhal has also pointed out that the decision in CWT vs. Moti Chand Daga (supra) was given on 21st May, 1988, and after the said decision, the same Bench of this Court has passed orders on 24th May, 1988, in Reference Applications Nos. 19 of 1988 and 86 of 1988 referred to above. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the questions raised by the Revenue in this application arise out of the Tribunal’s order dt. 25th March, 1988, and the same should be directed to be referred to this Court for its decision.

The application is, therefore, allowed and the Tribunal is directed, under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, to refer the following questions to this Court for its decision : “(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that r. 2B(2) of the WT Rules was not applicable in the assessee’s case and consequently in deleting the addition made by the WTO ? and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the firm, M/s Bhuramal Rajmal Surana (Mfg.), Jaipur, is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of s. 5(1)(xxxi) and consequently in holding that the value of the assessee’s interest in that firm is exempt under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act, 1957 ?”

No order as to costs.

[Citation :182 ITR 470]

Malcare WordPress Security