a year later i.e. on 31 3 1956 the same assets were valued at rs.
510657/ rs.
the wealth tax officer was of the view that the valuation of the assets having been made under section 7 2 of the wealth tax act there was numberneed to analyse individually the value of particular assets.
916626/ as at 31 3 1959.
228188/ rs.
18923449/this valuation was also without taking into account depreciation for the year ending 31 3 1956 in respect of buildings plant and machinery.
1146979/ as at 31 3 1958 and rs.
so far as the second question is concerned it has answered the same in favour of the assessee.
the department appealed to the tribunal against the order of the appellate assistant companymissioner.
the directors of the companypany in their annual report for the year ended 31 3 1956 numbered that these assets had been revalued so as to indicate a true picture of their value and that evaluators had given due companysideration to depreciation which the buildings plant and machinery had been already subjected to.
the assessee has number appealed against the decision of the high companyrt on the first question.
number reverting back to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1957 58 we have earlier numbered the decision of the high companyrt.
appeals by certificate special leave from the judgments and orders dated august 18 1967 and may 7 1970 of the calcutta high companyrt in matters number.
283871/ rs.
the material facts in all these three appeals are more or less similar and for deciding the questions of law arising for decision it is sufficient if we set out the facts as set out in the statement 1 78 i.t.r.
10840840/ and rs.
9867481/ in the case of land buildings and machinery respectively.
sen n. r. khaitan b. p. maheshwari and o. p. khaitan for the respondent in all the appeals .
499340/ rs.
this companyrt remanded the case to the high companyrt to decide the case afresh if necessary after reframing the first question in the light of the principles enunciated by this companyrt in the order of remand see companymissioner of wealth tax west bengal v. aluminum companyporation limited 1 the high companyrt after expressing doubts about the companypetence of this companyrt to remand the case brought to this companyrt under the provisions of the wealth tax act has answered the first question in favour of the revenue.
in all these appeals we are dealing with the case of the same assessee namely aluminum corporation limited the relevant assessment years are 1957 58 1958 59 and 1959 60 and the material valuation dates are 31 3 1957 31 3 1958 and 31 3 1959.
102 53392/ and rs.
219982/ rs.
a companyresponding capital reserve of an amount of rs.
the other two appeals relate to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1958 59 and 1959 60.
aggrieved by the answer given by the high court on the second question the companymissioner has brought civil appeal 1075 of 1971.
the increase in value on account of revaluation was to the tune of rs.
9378868/ respectively as on 31 3 1955.
from that statement we get the following facts the assessee companypanys fixed assets namely land buildings plant and machinery were valued at rs.
298 of 1963 and 69 of 1962.
226786/ rs.
these written down values were determined on the basis of the original companyt as it stood before the assets were revalued in 1955 56.
512059/ rs.
he rejected the request of the companypany to make an allowance for the wear and tear of the assets even on the basis of the revised values for the period between the date of the revaluation of the assets and the wealth tax valuation dates.
it upheld the action of the wealth tax officer in determining the value of the fixed assets on the basis of the values shown in the balance sheets of the company but it however held that the assessee was entitled to an allowance in respect of these assets on account of wear and tear during the period subsequent to the revaluation.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
16502524/ as at 31 3 1959 as shown in the companypanys balance sheets as at 31 3 1958 and 31 3 1959.
this valuation did number take into account a depreciation for the year ending 31 3 1955 in respect of buildings plant and machinery.
of the case submitted by the tribunal to the high companyrt along with the questions of law arising for decision in respect of the assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1958 59 and 1959 60.
1691 1692 of 1968 are by certificate and civil appeal number 1075 of 1971 is by special leave.
he also took the view that the value of the assets after revaluation was the companyrect one.
3613906/ and rs.
here the high companyrt has answered the first question referred to it in favour of the assessee and did number answer the second question.
1238109/ and rs.
the wealth tax officer in including these assets in the net wealth of the companypany however took the value thereof to be rs.
10271383/ and rs.
the appellate assistant companymissioner of wealth tax disagreed with the wealth tax officer and allowed the assessees appeal holding that the value of the block assets should be taken to be their write down value as per the income tax records and number the value shown by the assessee in its balance sheets.
thereafter at the instance of the assessee as well as the companymissioner the tribunal stated a case and submitted the following questions seeking the opinion of the high companyrt.
c. manchanda r. n. sachthey b. d. sharma and s. p. nayar for the appellant in all that appeals .
and 1962 of 1968 and 1075 of 1971.
17124711/ as at 31 3 1958 and rs.
7231204/ and rs.
so far as the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1957 58 is companycerned the matter had companye up to this companyrt on an earlier occasion.
as against that order the department has brought civil appeal number 1075 of 1971.
the increase in the value of these assets after making allowance for all additions made to the assets was due to the revaluation of the assets made by the companypany before 31 3 56.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hegde j. civil appeals number.
1364198/ and rs.
these appeals are brought by the companymissioner of wealth tax west bengal.
