TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (2) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has impugned this order of the Appellate Tribunal in the aforestated appeals for the respective assessment years. Thus it will be appropriate to dispose of all these seven wealth-tax appeals by a common order. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that in the statement annexed with the return the assessee had given a note that the WDV of the cars does not include the value of Rs. 131 lakhs for the imported car purchased from Shri Lalit Kumar Bagla knowing that some dispute is pending before the Delhi High Court. The assessee before the Assessing Officer vide his letter dated March 5, 1999, stated that a Rolls Royce car was purchased by the assessee from the said Shri Bagla for an amount of Rs. 131 lakhs and the company made p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lakhs from Shri Bagla. This car was duly registered in favour of the assessee. Subsequently, another car of 1988 model metallic blue Rolls Royce (chassis No. 24457) was purchased and the original car was returned to Shri Bagla and some documents were executed. However, the vehicle was not registered in the name of the assessee under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as according to Shri Bagla the balance consideration of Rs. 69 lakhs was not remitted to him. In the light of these facts, the Appellate Tribunal came to the following conclusions: "10. Having regard to the principles enunciated in the aforesaid decisions, we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) is justified on facts and in l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the adoption of the value of car at Rs. 1 crore by the tax authorities. According to the assessee, the Assessing Officer has not allowed any opportunity to the assessee to establish that the fair market value of the car as on March 31,1999, would not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs. It appears to us that the Assessing Officer has proceeded to adopt the value of the car at Rs. 1 crore on the ground that the assessee has not filed any valuation report and insurance cover in respect of this car and further that the WDV of the car cannot be the basis of the value of the car. While upholding the valuation at Rs. 1 crore, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) has taken note of the fact that the book value of the car has been shown as Rs. 88.55 lakhs wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in holding that the assessee-company was the owner of a Rolls Royce car (1988 model, chassis No. 24457, registration No. DEU-1), which belonged to it and the value thereof is liable to be included in the net wealth in the assessment of the assessee-company for wealth-tax purposes? 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in sustaining the inclusion of Rs. 1,17,59,017 being the WDV of the car in the net wealth of the assessee? 3. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in holding that the assessee is the owner of the car even though the dispute with regard to the ownership of the said car was pending before the hon'ble High Court? 4. Whether the order of the Inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he expression 'substantial question of law' is not defined in the Act or in any other statute where a similar expression appears, its true meaning and connotation is now well-settled by various judicial pronouncements. Recently in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [2001] 251 ITR 84 (SC), while dealing with an analogous provision contained in section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that to determine whether a question of law raised in a case is a 'substantial question of law, the tests laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314 still hold good. The five tests so laid are: whether (i) it is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant while relying upon the judgment in the case of CIT v. Jai Parkash Om Parkash Co. Ltd. [1964] 52 ITR 23 (SC) argued that the framed question of law in the present appeal requires consideration, the court should issue notice and not answer the questions of law at the admission stage itself. We are afraid this judgment is of no help to the petitioner in view of the admitted facts as afore-referred. In that case the court was concerned with the provisions of section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act where the High Court would consider an application for a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer a question of law arising out of the order. In the present case the court itself has to cons....