TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (12) TMI 52
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessment year 1992-93, the assessee declared the value of her share in immovable properties, bearing Nos. 2137 2140 and 2152, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi, at Rs. 2.50 lakhs. However, while completing the assessment for the relevant assessment year, the Wealth-tax Officer adopted the value of the properties at Rs. 44,08,992. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), (for short "the CWT(A)"). Before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), it was argued on behalf of the assessee that a mere possession, unaccompanied by the right to be in possession or ownership of the property would not bring the said property within the ambit of section 2(m) of the Act and, therefore, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... property in the net wealth and further no permission was sought for admission of an additional ground in that behalf. Thus, the Tribunal rejected the plea of the assessee that the value of the subject property could not be included in her net wealth. Hence, the present appeal. The assessee has raised the following questions, stated to be substantial questions of law: "(A) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the issue as to the value of the property was not at all liable to be included in the net wealth, was not raised before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) and therefore, this ground does not arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals)? (B) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ual averment that the ownership of the property is in dispute, in the revised grounds, filed as per the directions of the Tribunal a specific and precise ground on the issue was raised. Once the Tribunal entertained the revised grounds of appeal, it was incumbent upon it to take into consideration all the grounds urged in the appeal memo. Similarly, from a bare reading of the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) it is clear that the issue of inclusion of the said asset in her net wealth was specifically raised before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), but he failed to return any finding on the same. We are of the view that, strictly speaking, rule 11 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, was not applicable ....