IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.108 OF 2004 WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.179 OF 2004 WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.180 OF 2004 WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.148 OF 2004 Commissioner of Wealth Tax-XIII ..Appellant V/s. Mr.Rai Bahadur Kanwar Rajnath ..Respondent ---- Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant. Ms.Beena Pillai i/by D.M.Harsh & Co. for the respondent. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ R.S.Mohite,JJ R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 26.02.2008. PC 1. Wealth Tax Appeal No.108 of 2004 is for the assessment year 1989-90. Wealth Tax Appeal No.179 of 2004 is for the assessment year 1988-89. Wealth Tax Appeal No.180 of 2004 is for the assessment year 1990-91 and Wealth Tax Appeal No.148 of 2004 is for the assessment year 1992-93. 2. The Tribunal by the impugned order had disposed off 5 appeals preferred by the revenue. 4 appeals are on board. 5th Appeal in respect of the assessment year 1991-92 if filed is not on board. The first question which is common to all appeal may : 2 : be now dealt with. 3. The issue pertains to valuation of property. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the material before him noted that for assessment year 1992-93 in Appeal it had been held that as the property was covered under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act and that it is mortgaged with the Central Government and Syndicate bank, the report of the District Valuation Officer for the purpose of valuation could not be accepted. This finding was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Tribunal held that the commissioner was justified in not accepting the value fixed by the DVO in his report and as such the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) does not call for any interference. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order noted that there are specific provisions under Wealth Tax Act under Section 35(6A) and 35 (7A) to hold that where there is any amendment to the valuation report and or if there is an enhancement in the valuation of any asset by the valuation officer, only in those circumstances, can it be rectified. The contention of the assessee that there was no mistake apparent on record, as there is neither amendment in the valuation report by the valuation officer nor is there any enhancement in valuation of any asset and in these circumstances, there could be no rectification was accepted and cancelled the order : 3 : of the Wealth Tax officer. 5. This therefore, would be clearly a finding of fact on this aspect and consequently the question as regard to the valuation as framed would not arise. 6. For the assessment year 1992-93 which is Wealth Tax Appeal No.148/2004 there was an additional ground in the matter of computing and allowing disputed and unowned liability of interest payable to Bank and Government. The interest payable to Syndicate Bank and Government of India for the assessment year 1992-93 was worked out to Rs.14,44,247 and Rs.17,67,646 respectively. This interest liability was not allowed. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the interest liability in respect of the Syndicate bank as well as Government of India be allowed for deduction from the total wealth of the appeallant. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, held that they found no justification to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as admittedly, the interest liability has accrued which is an allowable deduction and the quantum of interest payable has been directed to be determined by the assessing officer. 7. In our opinion, considering these findings and the order, the questions as framed would not arise. : 4 : Consequently, all the appeals stand dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)