Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs B. M. Kanodia (HUF)

The income tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following two questions of law in W.T.A. No. 213 of 1987 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for opinion to this Court. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was correct In law In holding that the question of valuation was not referred to the proper valuer and directing the Wealth-tax Officer to refer the valuation again to the competent valuer, to determine the assessee''s share in the firm for the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 and not to go by valuation-made by the Valuation Officer who had valued the assets of the firm?

Whether in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing exemption to the assessee, a partner in M/s. Shadi Ram Ganga Prasad u/s 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act 1957 in respect of the property owned by the firm, for the assessment year 1979-80?

The reference relates to year 1979-80 in the case of B.M. Kanodia (HUF) and 1980-81 and 1981-82 in B.M. Kanodia (Ind.).

It is not necessary to give the facts giving rise to the present reference in view of the statement made by Shri R.K. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel that similar questions have been answered against the and in favour of the assessee in another member of the sane group, namely, Shri S.P. Kanodia in W.T.R. No. 8 of 1993 decided on 7th September, 2006.

Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.