2004 (8) TMI 16 - HC - Wealth-tax

Commissioner's Power to Consider New Valuation Reports Upheld

Commissioner of Wealth-Tax Versus Phool Chand.

The High Court upheld the Commissioner's power to consider subsequent valuation reports under section 25 of the Wealth-tax Act, ruling in favor of the ... Power of Commissioner of Wealth-tax - 'Whether Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling the order under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Agra, and in restoring the order under section 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, passed by the Wealth-tax Officer?' - it is well settled that the Commissioner can take into consideration materials and other documents which are available up to the time of scrutiny by him under section 263 of the Income-tax Act or section 25 of the Wealth-tax Act. - we hold that the Commissioner was perfectly justified in taking into consideration the subsequent valuation reports while initiating proceedings under section 25 - we answer the abovementioned question of law in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue Issues:Question of law referred under section 27(2) of the Wealth-tax Act regarding cancellation of order under section 25(2) and restoration of order under section 16(3) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.Analysis:The case involved a question of law regarding the cancellation of an order under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and the restoration of an order under section 16(3) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee, an individual owning a cinema building, had valuation discrepancies in different assessment years. Initially, the valuation was based on the cost of land and construction, but a subsequent valuation report valued the property higher using the yield method. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax deemed the initial assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, initiating proceedings under section 25(2) to reframe the assessment. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, cancelled these orders, citing that the subsequent valuation report should not have been considered under section 25 of the Act.During the proceedings, the Revenue argued that all materials available to the Commissioner during scrutiny could be considered under section 25, similar to section 263 of the Income-tax Act. Citing Supreme Court decisions in South India Steel Rolling Mills and Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products and Camphor Works, the Revenue contended that the Commissioner's revisional power under section 25 was broad, allowing the consideration of new materials discovered during the enquiry. The Supreme Court rulings emphasized the wide amplitude of the revisional power, enabling the Commissioner to examine new materials and records that were not available to the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment.The High Court, following the Supreme Court precedents, concluded that the Commissioner was justified in considering the subsequent valuation reports under section 25 of the Wealth-tax Act. Therefore, the question of law was answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs were awarded in this judgment.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal complexities involved in revising assessments under the Wealth-tax Act and the significance of considering all relevant materials during such proceedings, as established by Supreme Court interpretations of the revisional powers of the Commissioner.