2002 (6) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellate Tribunal that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax had exceeded his jurisdiction and his order cannot be sustained is correct in law?" The respondent-assessee was a partner in the firm called L.M. Patel and Co. having a 40 per cent. share. While assessing the interest of the assessee as partner in the said firm, the question of the value of the property of the firm consisting of a five storeyed commercial-cum-office building on land admeasuring 11,043 sq. ft. came up for consideration. The Wealth-tax Officer adopted the value of the said property as determined by the assessee's valuer. Subsequently on a reference made to the Departmental Valuer, the property was valued at Rs. 12,44,000 for the years under consideration. The Comm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lied on the decision of the Madras High Court in CWT v. S.V. Sivarathina Pandian [2000] 241 ITR 146, wherein the Madras High Court interpreted the provisions of section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, itself. Having heard learned counsel for the Revenue and having perused the aforesaid decisions, we find considerable substance in the submissions made by Mr. Tanvish Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue. In CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products and Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53, the Supreme Court interpreted a pari materia provision of section 263 of the Income-tax Act and held that while calling for and examining the record of any proceeding under section 263(1), it is and it was open to the Commissioner not only to consider....