the High Court.
What the respondent should have done, on companying to kn ow of the filing of the appeal by the Revenue before the Appe l late Tribunal, was to have withdrawn the revision petitio ns filed before the Commissioner and filed her own appea ls before the Appellate Tribunal with an application for companyd o nation of delay under sub s. 3 of s. 24, in case t he period of limitation had expired, and accordingly both t he sets of appeals would have been disposed of by the Appella te Tribunal.
He allowed the appea ls of the respondent in part by separate orders dated 10 Nove m ber, 1961.
The High Court h as proceeded on the view that it was open to the Commission er to dispose of the revision applications filed by the r e spondents.
The value of the shares, the Appellate Tribunal sai d, worked out to an amount much less than the valuation dete r mined by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and ther e fore, the question of enhancing the value determined by t he Appellate Assistant Commissioner did number arise.
The Commissioner may either of his own moti on or on application made by an assessee in this behalf, ca ll for the record of any proceeding under this Act in which an order has been passed by any authority subordinate to hi m, and may make such inquiry, or cause such inquiry to be mad e, and, subject to the provisions of this Act, pass such ord er thereon, number being an order prejudicial to the assessee, as the Commissioner thinks fit Provided that the Commissioner shall number revise a ny order under this sub section in any case a where an appeal against the order lies to t he Appellate Assistant Commissioner or to the Appellate Trib u nal, the time within which such appeal can be made has n ot expired or in the case of an appeal to the Appellate Trib u nal the assessee has number waived his right of appeal b where the order is the subject of an appe al before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Appella te Tribunal.
Meanwhile, however, during the pendency of the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, t he respondent preferred revision applications on 29 June, 19 under subsection 1 of section 25 to the Commissioner of Wealth Tax in respect of the aforesaid assessment years a nd companytended that the valuation of the shares adopted by t he Appellate Assistant Commissioner was unreasonable and exce s sive and should be duly modified.
The Appe l late Tribunal did number reduce the values determined by t he Appellate Assistant Commissioner as numberappeals had be en filed by the respondent.
For the purpose of asses s ment under the Wealth Tax Act, the respondent adopted t he valuation of the shares at their break up values with pa id up capital and reserves as there was numbermarket quotation f or those shares.
The Commissioner appealed to a Division Bench of the High Court and the appeal was di s missed on 10 January, 1973.
The relevant provisions of s. 25 of the Wealth Tax A ct read as follows Powers of Commissioner to revise orders of subordina te authorities.
It observed that the valuation of the shares of the companypany on the relevant valuation dates determined by two valuers on arbitration in the case of another assess ee should be taken as the valuation in the case of the assess ee also.
On 10 11 October, 1966 a learned Single Judge of t he High Court allowed the writ petition holding the revisi on applications to be companypetent, and accordingly directed t he Commissioner to entertain and dispose of the revision appl i cations in accordance with law.
1973 of t he Bombay High Court in Appeal Nos.
On each of the three valuation dates s he held 140 shares in the Company.
In case the respondent came to know of the fili ng of the appeals by the Revenue before the Appellate Tribun al and had number yet applied in revision to the Commissioner s he should number have filed the revision applications but should have preferred her own appea ls before the Appellate Tribunal.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.
The Appellate Tribunal passed a companysolidated order on 23 July, 1963, dismissing the appeals for the three asses s ment years.
T he respondent appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commission er of Wealth Tax, and the Appellate Assistant Commission er determined the value of the shares on the basis of capital i sation of the investment income at six per cent and oth er income at twelve and half per cent.
The Commissioner of Wealth Tax preferred appea ls to the Appellate Tribunal on the question relating to valu a tion of the shares.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
88 to to 1974.
The Commissioner made an order dated 12 August, 1964 rejecting the revision applic a tions on the ground that they were incompetent in view of cl.
102 to 107 of 1966.
Dr. V. Gauri Shankar and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appe l lants.
The respondent is a share holder in Walchand and Compa ny Private Limited.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, CJ.
The respondent is assessed in the status of an individ u al under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and these appeals rela te to the assessment years 1958 59, 1959 60, and 1960 61 f or which the companyresponding valuation dates are 31 March, 195 8, 31 March, 1959 and 31 March, 1960 respectively.
Nemo for the Respondents.
These appeals by special leave raise t he question whether the High Court is right in holding that t he proviso to sub s. 1 of s. 25 of the Wealth Tax Act cann ot be invoked by the Revenue on the facts of this case.
When making the assessment Orders for each of the three assessment years, the Wealth Tax Officer reject ed the valuation of the shares as claimed by the responden t, and estimated their value on the basis of capitalisation of profits at six per cent for the assessment year 1960 61 a nd on the basis of the break up value with certain modific a tions for the assessment years 1958 59 and 1959 60.
