Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Manna Lal Surana

This is a reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal arising out of WTR Nos. 6, 18, 19 and 21/Delhi/1985 for the assessment year 1979-80. The flowing questions have been referred for our answer: (i) Whether on the facts and; in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the (onus of proving that the market value of the closing stock exceeded by more than 20% the value disclosed in the balance sheet of the firm was on the revenue and the same not having been proved rule 2B(2) of the Wealth Tax Rules was not attracted ?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the firm M/s. Mannalal Nirmal Kumar Surana & Co., Jaipur is distinct from, and not merely an extension of the firm M/s. Hazari Mal Milapchand Surana and consequently in computing the assessee''s liability on that basis ?

So far as question No. 1 is concerned, same has already been dealt with and decided by us today in case title, CWT v. Smt. Bhanwari Devi [D.B. W.T. Reference No. 4/1988]. In the judgment aforesaid, the question was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee and accordingly the first question referred to us is decided in view of the order passed in Smt. Bhanwari. Devi case (supra) accordingly.

So far as question No. 2 is concerned, learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted that the said issue has also been decided by this court between the same parties in case title Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hazarimal Milapchand Surana, . Therein, this Court held that two firms are distinct and cannot be clubbed and accordingly the question was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The relevant para of the said judgment is extracted below, wherein necessary observation on the issue has made:

Assuming for the sake of arguments, that the view which has been taken by the income tax Officer is possible but on that basis the view of the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse, unless the view taken by the Tribunal is impossible. In the absence of any material which suggests that the view taken by the interfere with the order of the Tribunal on this issue.

In view of the answer of the reference by this Court in the case of Hazarimal Milapchand Surana (supra), the issue between the same parties is not to required be dealt with in detail inasmuch as the issue having been answered completely in the earlier judgment between the parties cover the entire field, on facts as well as the questions of law. The question No.2 is accordingly answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Both the questions are accordingly answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The preference petition is accordingly disposed of.