1999 (3) TMI 27 - HC - Wealth-tax

High Court rejects application on valuation of closing stock under Wealth-tax Act

Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax Versus Smt. Gulab Devi

Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax Versus Smt. Gulab Devi - [2000] 245 ITR 80, 155 CTR 100 Issues:- Application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 seeking directions from the High Court to refer a question of law to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.- Interpretation of rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 for valuing the closing stock based on gross profit rate declared by the assessee.- Burden of proof on the Revenue to show the market value of closing stock exceeds the valuation disclosed by more than 20%.- Application of rule 2B(2) of the Rules to the valuation of closing stock.- Consistency of decisions in similar cases by the High Court.Analysis:The Commissioner of Wealth-tax sought directions to refer a question of law regarding the applicability of rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules for valuing the closing stock based on the gross profit rate declared by the assessee. The Assessing Officer applied the rule to increase the returned wealth of the assessee, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal held that the rule cannot be invoked solely on the basis of gross profit shown by the assessee. The Tribunal declined to refer the question to the High Court. The burden of proof was on the Revenue to demonstrate that the market value of the closing stock exceeded the disclosed valuation by more than 20%. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to discharge this burden by providing evidence or material justifying the application of rule 2B(2) to the case. Therefore, the condition precedent for applying the rule was not satisfied, leading to the deletion of the addition made to the net wealth of the assessee.In previous cases, the High Court had consistently held that the burden lies on the Revenue to prove that the valuation of closing stock in the balance-sheet was not the true value and that the market value exceeded the disclosed valuation by more than 20%. The court emphasized that unless the Revenue demonstrates this, the conditions for invoking rule 2B(2) are not met. The High Court referred to earlier decisions where it was established that the burden of proof rests on the Revenue in such cases. The court declined to direct the Tribunal to refer the question to the High Court, citing the consistent view and decisions in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently, the application was dismissed by the High Court.