2002 (11) TMI 67 - HC - Wealth-tax

High Court corrects Tribunal's valuation errors, remits for fresh assessment, emphasizes independence, allows further evidence.

Commissioner of Wealth-Tax Versus Gnanagiri Ganesan.

The High Court found errors in the Appellate Tribunal's reliance on a non-existing rule to classify shares as unquoted and direct valuation on a yield ... '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in treating the shares of Pondicherry Papers Ltd., as unquoted on the valuation date relevant for the assessment year 1985-86? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing that the shares of the aforesaid company must be valued on yield basis when the assessee himself had sold 15,000 shares of the said company on April 10, 1984, at the rate of Rs. 10 per share as against the quoted value of Rs. 10.75 per share?' - we are not answering both the questions of law referred to us out we remit the matter to the Appellate Tribunal to consider the matter afresh. It is also open to the Tribunal to remit the matter to the assessing authority for fresh consideration to determine the value of the shares. Issues:1. Valuation of shares of Pondicherry Papers Ltd. as quoted or unquoted for the assessment year 1985-86.2. Direction to value shares on yield basis despite being sold at a different rate previously.Issue 1: Valuation of shares as quoted or unquoted:The case involved the valuation of shares in Pondicherry Papers Ltd. for the assessment year 1985-86. The assessee initially declared the value of the shares as nil, but the Wealth-tax Officer valued them at Rs. 10.75 per share based on the stock exchange listing. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals-I) allowed the appeal, stating that the poor financial results of the company made the quoted value inaccurate. The Appellate Tribunal, relying on Wealth-tax Rules, determined that the shares were unquoted due to no transactions since 1979 and directed valuation on a yield basis. The High Court found an error in the Tribunal's reliance on a non-existing rule, clause (ka) of rule 1A, and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration without answering the questions of law referred.Issue 2: Direction to value shares on yield basis:The second issue involved the direction by the Appellate Tribunal to value the shares on a yield basis, despite the assessee having sold some shares at a lower rate previously. The Tribunal's decision was based on the classification of the shares as unquoted. However, the High Court found the Tribunal's reliance on a non-existing rule to classify the shares as unquoted to be erroneous. The Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the matter independently without considering the non-existing rule, allowing for the possibility of presenting further evidence. The High Court did not provide a direct answer to the questions of law but remitted the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration, leaving the valuation of the shares open for reassessment.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the incorrect reliance by the Tribunal on a non-existing rule to classify the shares as unquoted and direct valuation on a yield basis. The Court emphasized the need for an independent assessment without the influence of the non-existing rule and allowed for the presentation of further evidence. The matter was remitted back to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration, leaving the valuation of the shares open for reassessment.