1986 (12) TMI 60 - AT - Wealth-tax

Valuation method for unquoted equity shares under Wealth-tax Rules is directory, not mandatory. Precedents favor assessee.

The Tribunal held that the valuation method for unquoted equity shares under the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 is not mandatory but directory. Relying on ... Market Value, Quoted Equity Shares, Valuation Date Issues: Valuation method for unquoted equity shares under Wealth-tax Rules, 1957.Analysis:The dispute in the appeals pertains to the valuation of unquoted equity shares of a company for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The assessee valued the shares based on the yield method, while the WTO valued them using the break-up value method as per rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. The AAC accepted the assessee's contention that rule 1D is directory, not mandatory, and directed the shares' revaluation using the yield method. The department appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that rule 1D is mandatory, relying on precedents like WTO v. Seth Sudhir Kumar Modi and WTO v. Sheo Prosad Nopany. The authorized representative for the assessee supported the AAC's decision, citing Tribunal decisions in other cases where rule 1D was considered directory, not mandatory.The Tribunal considered the conflicting judicial opinions on the mandatory nature of rule 1D. While some decisions, like Seth Sudhir Kumar Modi, held rule 1D as mandatory, others, such as K.G.R. Nayar and Madhukant J. Shah, viewed it as directory. The Tribunal also referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Smt. Sharbati Devi Jhalani, which held that rule 1D's applicability is not mandatory if the valuation dates of the assessee and the company do not coincide. The Tribunal applied the principle that in case of ambiguity in a taxing provision, the interpretation favoring the assessee should be adopted, as per CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that rule 1D is directory, aligning with the view favorable to the assessee.Moreover, the Tribunal analyzed the Calcutta High Court's observations in the case of Balbhadradas Bangur, emphasizing that rule 1D does not apply to investment companies and that the valuation method should follow the yield method unless exceptional circumstances, like liquidation, exist. The Tribunal noted that the valuation dates of the assessee and the company did not coincide, further supporting the view that rule 1D is directory in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the AAC's order to revalue the shares using the yield method, dismissing the departmental appeals.