Shakti Sikand Vs. Cit

Shakti Sikand vs Cit

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 20, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/707804

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/707804
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Feb 20, 2003
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

In the Delhi High Court D.K. Jain & Madan B. Lokur, JJ. Wealth Tax Reference 78 of 1991 20 February 2003 - - The case has been listed before the court for appropriate orders, as the assessed, at whose instance the reference has been made, has failed to file the paper books despite various opportunities, However, ...

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shakti Sikand

Advocate R.C. Pandey,;for the Responden

Respondent

Cit

Legal References

Reported In: [2004]136TAXMAN276(Delhi)

Excerpt

in the delhi high court d.k. jain & madan b. lokur, jj. wealth tax reference 78 of 1991 20 february 2003 - - the case has been listed before the court for appropriate orders, as the assessed, at whose instance the reference has been made, has failed to file the paper books despite various opportunities, however, since answer to the questions referred for our opinion stands concluded by the decision of the apex court, we dispense with the filing of the paper books and proceed to answer the reference......however, since answer to the questions referred for our opinion stands concluded by the decision of the apex court, we dispense with the filing of the paper books and proceed to answer the reference.2. the following questions have been referred by the income tax appellate tribunal, new delhi for our opinion :'1. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in holding that rule 1bb was not mandatory the vis-a-vis valuation officer.2. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in holding that the values of the two residential properties namely, kautilya marg and 8, curzon road should be adopted as valued by the departmental valuer ?'3. since the issue involved is purely legal, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts. suffice it to note that the issue raised is as to whether rule 1bb of the wealth tax rules, 1958 would apply to assessment proceedings pertaining to the assessment year 1979-80 onwards or also to those assessment years in respect of which assessment proceedings were pending on 1-4-1979 when the said rule came into force.4. the same issue came up for consideration of the apex court in cwt v. sharvan kumar swarup & sons : 1995ecr425(sc) , wherein their lordships of the supreme court have pleased to hold that rule 1bb partakes of the character of a rule of evidence. it deems the market value to be the one arrived at on the application of a particular method of valuation which is also one of the recognised and accepted methods. the rule is procedural and not substantive and is, thereforee, applicable to all proceedings pending on 1-4-1979, when the rule came into force.5. in view of the said authoritative pronouncement, both the questions are answered in the negative i.e., in favor of the assessed and against the revenue.the reference stands disposed with no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

D.K. Jain, J.

The case has been listed before the court for appropriate orders, as the assessed, at whose instance the reference has been made, has failed to file the paper books despite various opportunities, However, since answer to the questions referred for our opinion stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court, we dispense with the filing of the paper books and proceed to answer the reference.

2. The following questions have been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi for our opinion :

'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that rule 1BB was not mandatory the vis-a-vis Valuation Officer.

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the values of the two residential properties namely, Kautilya Marg and 8, Curzon Road should be adopted as valued by the departmental Valuer ?'

3. Since the issue involved is purely legal, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts. Suffice it to note that the issue raised is as to whether Rule 1BB of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1958 would apply to assessment proceedings pertaining to the assessment year 1979-80 onwards or also to those assessment years in respect of which assessment proceedings were pending on 1-4-1979 when the said rule came into force.

4. The same issue came up for consideration of the Apex Court in CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons : 1995ECR425(SC) , wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have pleased to hold that rule 1BB partakes of the character of a rule of evidence. It deems the market value to be the one arrived at on the application of a particular method of valuation which is also one of the recognised and accepted methods. The rule is procedural and not substantive and is, thereforee, applicable to all proceedings pending on 1-4-1979, when the rule came into force.

5. In view of the said authoritative pronouncement, both the questions are answered in the negative i.e., in favor of the assessed and against the revenue.

The reference stands disposed with no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2003 Same Parties Shakti Sikand vs Cit Same Subject Direct Taxation

Direct Taxation