AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The income tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law u/s 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion of this Court. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing exemption in a partner of a firm u/s 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of property owned by the firm?
The reference relates to the assessment years 1972-73 to 1980-81.
Briefly staled the facts giving rise to the present reference, are as follows:
The assessee was a partner in the firm of M/s Shadi Ram Ganga Prasad. M/s Kanodia & Sons. The Wealth-tax Officer made a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer u/s 16 of the Act to value land, building, plant and machinery belonging to the above firm. After obtaining valuation report, the Wealth-tax Officer completed the wealth tax of the assessee in accordance with the valuation of the Departmental Valuation Officer. In appeal the said issue had been referred back to the Wealth-tax Officer to get the valuation report from a competent and duly authorized officer from the department. The Wealth-tax Officer also did not allow exemption u/s 5(1)(iv) of the Act in respect of assessee''s interest in the value of land and building owned by the firm. Against the order of the Wealth-tax Officer the assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax allowed the assessee''s appeal regarding exemption antler section 5(1)(iv) following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sudhir Bhargava WT Appeal No. 477 (All.) of 1984, Dated 28-11-1986. The said order was also confirmed by the Tribunal in an appeal filed by the department.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
In CWT v. S.P. Kanodia, (HUF) [WT Reference No. 4 of 1993, dated 7-9-2006] we find that the similar question has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision we answer the question referred to us in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.