Commissioner of Wealth-tax vs Smt. Kanchan Bai Bader, Smt. Kusum Bader and Harish Chandra Bader

S.N. Bhargava, J.—These are three wealth-tax reference applications u/s 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the assessment year 1977-78 arising out of wealth-tax appeals. The Tribunal rejected the applications u/s 27 of the Act. According to the Revenue, the following questions of law arise out of the order of the Wealth-tax Appellate Tribunal. It has been prayed by the Department that the Tribunal may be directed to refer these questions of law to this court :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified :

(1) in holding that, in order to ascertain the actual market value of the closing stock of the firm for purposes of Rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, the export invoice value has to be reduced by 35 per cent. ;

(2) in holding that the export invoice value is not the market price but merely a quotation notwithstanding the provisions of Section 18 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act ;

(3) in holding that the difference between the market value and the cost price of the closing stock of the firm is less than 20 per cent. and, therefore, no addition on account of increased value could be made in the assessee''s net wealth under Rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ?"

The assessee is maintaining its books of account according to the Deewali year. The return of wealth was submitted in which the valuation of the stock of the firm of which the assessee is a partner was disclosed on the basis of the purchase price. According to the Revenue, no proof in support of the purchase price was submitted. In the trading account of the firm of which the assessee is a partner, the gross profit rate was disclosed at more than 20 per cent. The Wealth-tax Officer, prima facie, being satisfied with the valuation of the stock, had given an opportunity to the assessee to show cause as to why the stock should not be evaluated by adding the profit as disclosed on the admitted facts of the assessee-firm. The plea of the assessee was that the provisions of Rule 2B(2) are not applicable. The Wealth-tax Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and held that the provisions of Rule 2B(2) are applicable and determined the market value of the stock which was more than 20 per cent. The assessee preferred an appeal which was allowed and the additions were deleted. The Revenue, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which was also rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application u/s 27 of the Act which was also rejected and hence, the present applications have been filed u/s 27 of the Act.

Learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the facts of the present cases are exactly identical with those of COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX Vs. S. K. BADER AND OTHERS., between the same parties, relating to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 and, in the said case, it has been held that the finding of the Tribunal is purely a finding of fact and does not involve any question of law for reference to this court. The facts as found by the Tribunal have not been disputed even in the application u/s 27 before the Tribunal and have not been challenged here in the present application. The questions which are sought to be raised in the present matter are similar to the ones raised in the case of COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX Vs. S. K. BADER AND OTHERS.,

Learned counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the High Court has no jurisdiction to go behind the facts which have been found by the Tribunal and the Revenue cannot be allowed to challenge the facts for the first time before the High Court in a reference application. In this connection, reliance has been placed on Karnani Properties Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, The question sought, to be raised must arise out of the facts and circumstances as found by the Tribunal, and if any party wants to challenge the correctness of the finding given by the Tribunal on any ground whatsoever, it ought to raise it before the Tribunal in an application u/s 27 of the Act and a party can challenge the finding of the Appellate Tribunal only if it raises a separate question of law specifically challenging the finding of fact arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal as being perverse or that there was no evidence to support them or they are the result of misdirection of law.

It has further been submitted by the assessee''s counsel that this court should follow its earlier view particularly when the earlier view was in respect of the present assessee himself. It has further been submitted that since the question has already been decided by this court, the questions of law, even if they arise, need not be referred to this court. In this connection, reliance has been placed on Commissioner of Gift Tax, Bombay Vs. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia, , Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. Shiv Parshad, Telu Ram Raunqi Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Carborandum Universal Ltd., .

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the whole matter. In our considered view, we are of the opinion that the facts of the present case are exactly identical to the facts in COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX Vs. S. K. BADER AND OTHERS., The facts being similar and the questions also being similar, and the Revenue not having challenged that the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal is perverse, we are inclined to follow the decision of this court reported in COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX Vs. S. K. BADER AND OTHERS., particularly when the matter is between the same parties and since these questions have already been answered by this court, we refuse to direct the Tribunal to refer these questions again to this court for opinion.

In the result, we do not find any force in these applications. These applications are dismissed without any order as to costs.