Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs M.D. Jindal

Sengupta, J.—In this reference u/s 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (''the Act'') for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79 the following questions of law have been referred to this Court:

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the rule 1BB of Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, inserted with effect from 1-4-1979, would be applicable to pending matters in respect of an assessment year prior to assessment year 1979-80 ?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the rule 1BB of Wealth-tax Rules is mandatory and not directory in nature and. therefore, in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the house properties in question have to be valued as per rule 1BB of Wealth-tax Rules and not on the basis of Valuation Officer''s report as done by the Wealth-tax Officer ?

The first question is now concluded by the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Manjushree Biswas Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax,

Following the said decision we answer the first question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

So far as the second question is concerned, our attention has been drawn to the decision in the case of CWT v. India Exchange Traders Association [IT Reference No. 49 (Cal.) of 1987 dated 21-3-1991]. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal principles we hold that rule ID of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 (''the Rules'') is mandatory. In our view, the same principle will apply to the interpretation of rule 1BB of the Rules. In other words, rule 1BB is also mandatory.

Following the said decision we answer the second question in this reference in the negative and in favour of the assessee.

There will be no order as to costs.

Sen, J.

I agree.