IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.132 OF 2005 TAX APPEAL NO.132 OF 2005 TAX APPEAL NO.132 OF 2005 Mr.Rakesh Kumar Goyal, Mumbai.. Appellant Vs. The Wealth Tax Officer Ward 12 (2) 1) Mumbai .. Respondents Mr.Sameer Dalal for Appellant Mr.A.S.Rao with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for Respondents CORAM CORAM CORAM : Dr.S.Radhakrishnan and : Dr.S.Radhakrishnan and : Dr.S.Radhakrishnan and A.V.Nirgude, A.V.Nirgude, A.V.Nirgude, JJ JJ JJ DATED DATED DATED : 11th June, 2008 : 11th June, 2008 : 11th June, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Admit. By consent, appeal is taken up for hearing. In the appeal, following questions of law are raised : (i) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding that the interest of the appellant in the properties of the registered firm M/s Sanjeev Woolen Mills was liable to be included in the net wealth of the appellant and accordingly liable for wealth tax ? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, assuming but not admitting that such interest was liable to be so includible the Tribunal erred in not dealing with alternative contention of the appellant on the aspect of valuation of such interest ? 2 (iii) Whether in the facts and cicumstances of the case and in law assuming but not admitting that the interest of the appellant in the partnership firm was liable to be included in his net wealth ? (a) the values as adoppted by the respondent were in accordance with the law and/or were proper and/or excessive ? (b) in view of the fact that the liabilities of the firm were more than the assets of the firm no wealth tax was chargeable ? 3. We have perused the order of the tribunal wherein the tribunal has categorically mentioned in para 6 that the methods adopted by the Assessing Officer was not correct. We have also perused the judgment of our court in Wealth Tax Appeal No. 188 of 2005 passed with regard to Sat Prakash Goyal vs The Wealth Tax Officer. It is with regard to some partnership firm wherein certain assets which were permissibe to be included under section 2 (ea) of the Wealth Tax Act 1957 were not considered by the Assessing Officer and that mistake continued in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. 4. We find that in the instant case also same mistake seems to have been occured on the part of the Assessing officer as well as at the tribunal 3 level. In view thereof, we set aside the order of the I.T.A.T. dated 8.8.2004. 5. Under the above circumstances, we direct the tribunal to consider aforesaid case afresh including the question of excluding as raised by the appellant under section 2 (ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 as well as the valuation method adopted in the above case which appears to be faulty. Hence, the valuation ought to be adopted on legaly permissible basis. 6. Appeal stands allowed accordingly. {A.V.Nirgude, {A.V.Nirgude, {A.V.Nirgude, J} J} J} {Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, {Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, {Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, J} J} J}