2001 PLP 1926 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus V.R.M. VALLIAPPA CHETTIAR
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1926 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 246 I T R 801 |
| Bench Members | R. Jayasimha Babu and Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus V.R.M. VALLIAPPA CHETTIAR |
| Primary Law | Wealth tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1926 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Wealth tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1926 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 246 I T R 801 bench comprising: R. Jayasimha Babu and Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1926 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus V.R.M. VALLIAPPA CHETTIAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Valuation of assets‑‑‑Valuation made for earlier valuation date could not ipso facto be applied for valuation for later years. The valuation for wealth tax purposes is required to be made as on the valuation date and a report given with regard to the value made for an earlier valuation date, could not ipso facto apply for determining the valuation for later years. . C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑ Valuation of assets‑‑‑Valuation made for earlier valuation date could not ipso facto be applied for valuation for later years. The valuation for wealth tax purposes is required to be made as on the valuation date and a report given with regard to the value made for an earlier valuation date, could not ipso facto apply for determining the valuation for later years. . C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee. R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.‑‑‑The Tribunal while approving the reasoning adopted by the. Commissioner in his order by which the Commissioner had set aside the wealth tax assessment and directed the Wealth Tax Officer to redo the assessment after going into the entire gamut of the valuation of the properties concerned, by what was termed a slight modification, virtually set at naught the Commissioner's order. The directions, so given by the Tribunal, were not called for. Now the Revenue is before us questioning the directions given by the Tribunal. The question referred to us is as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in modifying the direction of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax given under section 25(2) and directing the Assessing Officer to finalise the assessments for the assessment years 1983‑84 to 1986‑87 on the basis of the value finally fixed for the properties concerned in the assessment years 1982‑83?" The mere fact that the valuation report was received subsequent to the date of the assessment would not ipso facto make the valuation applicable to all the years up to the date of the assessment as the valuation made was with reference to a specific anterior date, namely, April 13, 1982. The assessment years in question are later years 1983‑84 to 1986‑
87. The Commissioner has rightly directed the Wealth Tax Officer to redo the assessment for those years without binding him to adopt the report of the Valuation Officer given for the earlier year. The valuation is required to be made as on the valuation date and the report given with regard to the value made for an earlier valuation date, cannot in these circumstances ipso facto apply for determining the valuation for later years. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. M.B.A./520/FC Reference answered