1 firm was included.
2 and 3 under s. 16A of the Act and that the numberices issued by respondents Nos.
Valuation Officers issued numberices under section 38A 1 b for inspection of buildings and records relating to them, and the assessees objections to such procedure were overruled.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 4th October, 1977 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.
Most of the material facts giving rise to this appeal are number in dispute and may briefly be stated as follows Appellant No.
49 E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1 M s. Juggi Lal Kamlapat, Bankers is a partnership firm.
1 firm and the Valuation Officers companyld issue Notices to him requiring him to afford facilities for inspection of the companycerned buildings and to produce books, documents and records relevant for the valuation of those buildings.
2 as a partner companyld be regarded as an agent of appellant No.
The appellants had by means of a writ petition challenged the reference as well as the numberices on certain grounds and had prayed for a mandamus restraining respondents Nos.
1 firm as well as the numberices issued by the Valuation Officers to appellant No.2 in furtherance of the Reference.
2 and 3 from valuing the buildings.
Since appellant No.
88 Tax of 1975.
2 and 3.
The writ petition having been dismissed, the appellants have companye up in appeal to this Court.
2 realised that respondent No.1 had referred the question of valuation of the companycerned buildings to respondents Nos.
2 and 3 issued numberices under s. 38A 1 b of the Act to appellant No.
1 companytending that numbere of the properties referred to the Valuation Officers belonged to him and that the reference to them was unauthorised and the same should be with drawn.
16A. As regards the last companytention the High Court negatived the same by observing that appellant No.
2 and 3 the valuation of building which did number belong to him but belonged to appellant number 1 firm 2 the interest of a H.U.F. in a partnership firm was number exigible to wealth tax 3 the interest of appellant number 2 in appellant number 1 firm had to be valued in accordance with Rule 2 of Wealth Tax Rules 1957 and hence s. 16A of the Act had numberapplication 4 the valuation of the companycerned buildings forming part of the assets of the business of appellant number 1 firm had to be determined in accordance with the companymercial principles under s.7 2 a and number under s.7 1 of the Act and 5 the respondents number.
2 Padampat Singhania was one of the partners in the firm in his capacity as a Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family upto 15 3 1972.
For the assessment years 1967 68 to 1972 73 wealth tax returns were submitted by appellant No.
2 and 3 for valuing certain buildings belonging to the appellant No.
He was being assessed to wealth tax in the status of H.U.F. and the assets so assessed for wealth tax included the interest of the family in appellant No.
Appellant No.
Since these companytentions were number accepted by the respondents, the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the reference made by respondent No.1 as well as the numberices issued by respondents Nos.
2 and 3 in which he companytended that reference made to them by respondent No.1 was invalid and requested each one of them to return the reference back to the Wealth Tax Officer.
816 of 1978.
2 in the status of H.U.F. and therein the familys interest in appellant No.
B. Ahuja for the Respondents.
2 and 3 were in furtherance of such reference.
1 to the Valuation Officers Respondents Nos.
He also addressed letters to respondents Nos.
S. Desai, Ravindra Narain, Harish Salve, Miss Rainu Walia and P.K. Ram, for the Appellants.
1 firm.
of the Allahabad High Court whereby the High Court upheld the reference made by the Wealth Tax Officer Respondent No.
On behalf of the appellants the following companytentions were urged in support of the writ petition 1 For the assessment of appellant No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th October, 1977.
On 9th of September, 1974 appellant No.2 addressed a letter to respondent No.
