TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (10) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as under: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules was not applicable in the assessee's case and consequently in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,75,415 for assessment year 1979-80 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not holding that the onus was on the assessee to prove that the market value of the closing stock of Messrs. Lall's Gems and Jewels, Jaipur, did exceed by more than 20% the value disclosed by him and whether the assessee could be said to have discharged that onus ?" In Reference Application No. 56 of 1988 which rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely on the basis of the, gross profit rate disclosed by the firm in which the assessee is one of the partners. The said view has been affirmed in appeal by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that rule 2B(2) could not be invoked on the basis of the gross profit shown by the assessee in the trading account. The Revenue thereafter submitted applications under section 27(1) of the Act for referring the questions of law for the consideration of this court. The said applications have been rejected by the Tribunal. Hence, these reference applications in this court. We have heard Shri V. K. Singhal, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Shri Anant Kasliwal, learned counsel for the assessee. Before we deal with the submissions urged by Shri Si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be invoked. In view of the aforesaid decision of this court in Moti Chand Daga's case [1988] 174 ITR 379, it cannot be said that the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules was not applicable in the assessee's case because the Wealth-tax Officer had applied rule 2B(2) only on the basis of gross profit rate being more than 20%. Similarly, in view of the aforesaid decision, the question with regard to onus of proof also stands concluded because this court has held that the onus is on the Department. In other words, both the questions which are sought to be raised by the Revenue in these reference applications stand fully covered by the decision of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case [1988] 174 ITR 379 should not be applied to the present cases and that the reference may be called for in respect of the questions mentioned in the applications. In this connection, the submission of Shri Singhal is that, on the facts of the present cases, the Revenue discharged the burden placed upon it and that, in any event, the matter should be sent back to the Wealth-tax Officer for holding an inquiry as to whether the market value is more than 20% or not and to afford an opportunity to the Revenue to show that the market value is more than 20%. In this regard, Shri Singhal has urged that the Wealth-tax Officer had issued a notice to the assessee and the assessee had not submitted any reply to the said notice. Shri Singhal has al....