JUDGMENT
Y.R. Meena, J.
On an application under section 27(l) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal has referred the following questions set out at p. 2 of the statement of case for our opinion :
“(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Commissioner of Wealth Tax cannot rely on the report of the valuer to invoke the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ?
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax under sub-section (2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and in allowing the assessee’s appeal ?”
2. The assessment years involved are 1967-68 to 1974-75. The Wealth Tax Officer has made assessment valuing the immovable properties of the assessee and in 1967-68, he valued the property of the assessee at Rs. 7.70,090- The same value was repeated up till 1969-70. In the assessment year 1970-71, the value has been taken at Rs. 7,69,690. Same value has been taken for the asst. yrs, 1971-72 to 1973-74. In the assessment year 1974-75, the value has been taken at Rs. 7,15,400.
On perusal of the records and considering the valuation report of the Valuation Officer, Commissioner of Wealth Tax has set aside the assessment orders and directed the Wealth Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law and consider the report of the Valuation Officer by making fresh assessment orders.
In appeal before the Tribunal, Tribunal has considered the decision of this court in Ganga Pipperties v. TTO (1979) 118 ITR 447 (Cal) and held that Commissioner of Wealth Tax cannot look into the valuation report, as it was not part of the record of the Wealth Tax Officer.
3. Heard learned counsel for the revenue . None appeared for the assessee, though the matter was listed twice. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that after the decision in Ganga Properties (supra), this court has reconsidered its earlier view in CIT v. S.M. Oil Extraction (P) Ltd. (1992) 102 CTR (Cal) 142 : (1991) 190 ITR 404 (Cal) and held that the valuation report received after completion of the assessment forms part of the assessment record and Commissioner of Wealth Tax can consider the report for the purpose of revision of the assessment orders under section 25 of the Act. He further submits that the subsequent decision of the Calcutta High Court has been affirmed by the apex court in case of CIT v. Shri Manjunatheswar Packing Products & Camphor Works (1997) 143 CTR (SC) 406 : (‘1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC). He further submits that though the decisions are under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, but section 263 of the Income Tax Act is pan materia with section 25 of Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
4. in CIT v. Shri Manjunatheswar Packing Products & Camphor Works (supra). Their Lordships has considered the meaning of “record”. For the purpose of revision, the “record” means, “the material available” to the assessing officer at the time of assessment or whether “record” means, “the material available on record at the time of examination of the report by Commissioner under section 263”? Their Lordships held that the ‘record’ is not confined to material available to Income Tax Officer and any material available to the Commissioner at the time of examination for the purpose of revision of the assessment order. In view of the subsequent decision of this court and the aforesaid decision of the apex Court, in our view, the Commissioner of Wealth Tax can consider the valuation report which was not available to the Wealth Tax Officer at the time of his completion of assessment.
In the result, we answer question No. 1 in negative, i.e., in favour of revenue and against assessee. Question No. 2 is consequential. We also answer this in negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
The reference application is accordingly disposed of.
