1984 PLP 246 (PTD)

SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑This is an application under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act raising the following question :‑ "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified in giving specific relief to the assesses when in the earlier part of the finding the order of the Wealth Tax Officer had been set aside to the extent of the valuation of the property? The respondent in his return declared the value of his house in Delhi Mercantitle Housing Society at Rs. 35,000 but the Wealth Tax Officer assessed it at Rs. 48,

000. The respondent filed an appeal before the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal contending that the Wealth Tax Officer had assessed the value of property in question at 20 times of the gross annual letting value without taking prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as required under second proviso to 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules. The learned Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the Wealth Tax Officer accept the valuation of the property at Rs. 38,200 and the assessment was to be modified accordingly. Mr. Waheed Farooqui, the learned counsel for the Department has contended that in view of the second proviso to rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, the learned Tribunal could have only set aside the order of the Wealth Tax Officer and was not competent to issue any direction that the assessment of the property should be accepted at Rs. 35,

200. On the other hand Mr. Pasha the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that proviso is couched in mandatory form and as admittedly no prior permission of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had been taken the entire assessment was vitiated and no opportunity should be given to the Wealth Tax Officer to fill in the lacuna. Rule 8(3) and the relevant proviso reads as under :‑ "

8. Valuation of assets other than cash.‑(1) Subject to the provisions of sub‑rules (2), (3), (3‑A), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9), the value of any assets (outer than cash) for the purposes of assessment to Wealth Tax, be estimated to be the price, which in the opinion of the Wealth Tax Officer, it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. . . . (4) Land and buildings.‑The, value of lands building excluding agriculture land shall be estimated with due regard to the nature and size of the property, the amenities available and the price prevailing for similar assets in the same locality or in the neighbour-hood of the said locality. Provided .................. Provided further that where the capital value of such property has not been so determined, the Wealth Tax Officer shall not except with the prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax adopt a value higher than a sum equal to ten times the gross annual rental value of such property." The admitted position is that the Wealth Tax Officer had not obtained prior approval of the Inspecting Commissioner, although he had assessed the property at 20 times of the gross annual letting value of the property. The learned Tribunal was therefore, justified in setting aside the assessment made by the Wealth Tax Officer. The proviso to rule 8(3) imposes a duty on the Wealth Tax Officer to obtain the approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner if he intends to adopt valuation higher than a sum equal t ten times of the annual gross letting value of the property. Therefore, if the assessment is to be made within this limit no approval is necessary but the moment the Wealth Tax Officer wishes to adopt a value exceeding to limit then prior approval is necessary. From the latest amendment it see that in the proviso the word "Inspecting Assistant Commissioner" has substituted by "Central Board of Revenue". This amendment suggest that the restriction imposed on the Wealth Tax Officer, has become more strict Amendments in statute are sometimes indicative of the intention of the Legislature. The amendment suggests that proviso has to be strictly construed Nobody disputes that compliance of this proviso is not mandatory in nature. The only dispute at the moment is, whether, the learned Tribunal while setting aside the order could have accepted the assessment of Rs. 35,

200. The learned counsel for the, applicant contended that the learned Tribunal s4uld have remanded the case back for reassessment. The Tribunal was acting as an appellate Authority. White hearing appeal the darned Tri is4authorised under section 24(5) to pass such order as it thinks fit include the order enhancing the assessment. The entire evidence documents and material produced on record were before it and as an appellate Authority i was competent to fix a rental value as it deemed fit in accordance with law. Therefore on the basis of the material, the Tribunal thought it proper to fix the value of the house instead of remanding it back to the Wealth Tax Officer. In our view the Tribunal's order is legel and proper. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative. M. Z. M. Reference answered in affirmative.