T.A. ABDULKHADER vs COMUSSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

OM PRAKASH, C. I:

The assessee by this application made under s. 27(3) of the WT Act requires us to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following questions for the opinion of this Court.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was there any material before the Hon''ble Tribunal to show that area let out to Swapna Jewellery was occupied by the assessee and the members of his family for their jewellery business while Swapna Jewellery was only a partnership firm, as admitted by the appellant as can be seen from p. 5 of the order of Tribunal and as found by the Tribunal in para 2 of its order?

Whether, on the facts, and circumstances of the case, after entering into the finding that the valuation by the WTO as well as the Valuation Officer can only be in accordance with Sch. M to the WT Act, the Hon''ble Tribunal was justified in law in taking the alleged prevailing market rent as fixed by the Valuation Officer as rent receivable within the meaning of r. 5 of Sch. M?

Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, after admitting in the Income Tax assessment order that rent received is only the rent receivable, the Hon''ble Tribunal was justified in law in taking the alleged market rent as fixed by the Valuation Officer as the rent receivable for the purpose of wealth-tax valuation?

Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, was there any material before the Tribunal to conclude that the alleged market rent fixed by the Valuation Officer was the rent receivable while admittedly Swapna Jewellery was only an old tenant to whom the building had to be let out on reconstruction while Choice Ready-mades was only a new tenant after the new construction?

Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in taking the rent receivable at Rs. 4,185 p.m. for the purpose of Sch. M to the WT Act ?"

Though the reference is sought for five questions, learned counsel for the assessee candidly submits before us that he presses to refer only question No. 3.

Inasmuch as, the above question No. 3, in our opinion, is a question of law, we direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the said question only for'' the opinion of this Court.

OPEN