IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.3.2015 CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH T.C.(A).Nos.1212 to 1218 of 2007 Commissioner of Wealth Tax Madurai.Appellant Vs. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. Madurai. Respondent PRAYER: Appeals under Section 27A of Wealth Tax Act against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, D' Bench, Chennai, dated 27.11.2002 made in W.T.A.Nos.204 to 207/Mds/93, 447/Mds/1994, 85/Mds/1996, and 86/Mds/1996. For Appellant: Mr.M.Swaminathan Standing Counsel For Respondent: Mr.S.A.Balasubramanian JUDGMENT (Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR, J.) These appeals are filed by Revenue under Section 27A of Wealth Tax Act against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, D' Bench, Chennai, dated 27.11.2002 made in W.T.A.Nos.204 to 207/Mds/93, 447/Mds/1994, 85/Mds/1996, and 86/Mds/1996 and same were admitted on following questions of law: (2) (i) Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that valuation of assessee company's immovable property should be as per Rule 1BB/Schedule III of Wealth Tax Rules, although difference between unbuilt area and specified area exceeded 20% of aggregate area? (ii) Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that premises leased out and used by lessee as factory godown, etc., is not subject to wealth tax? 2. Even though these appeals were admitted above questions of law, learned counsel appearing for Revenue fairly concedes that in these appeals only question of law raised by department is: Whether in facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that written down value of cars and jeeps owned by assessee should be taken as market value for purposes of wealth tax? That apart, he submits that pleadings and grounds raised in affidavits filed in support of these appeals relate only to above sole question of law and there is no pleading or ground raised in relation to two substantial questions of law on which these appeals are admitted. 3. In view of said submission made by learned Standing Counsel for Revenue, only question that needs consideration is Whether in facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that written down value of cars and jeeps owned by (3) assessee should be taken as market value for purposes of wealth tax? 4. learned counsel on either side submit that in assessee's own case for assessment years 1988-89 to 1991-1992, this Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., (2007) 289 ITR 284 (Mad.) has answered very same question of law in favour of assessee and against Revenue. 5. In Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., (2007) 289 ITR 284 (Mad.), this Court while answering very same question of law, held as under: 5. We heard arguments. In this case, what is shown in books was offered for wealth-tax assessments. Assessing Officer had merely adopted insured value of vehicles as market value. Assessing Officer ought to have determined market value for each vehicle, instead of merely adopting value which was offered to insurance company by assessee. Assessing Officer did not do anything except adopting value offered to insurance company, as market value. As to what should be value of asset is essentially question of fact, especially when Tribunal had adopted written down value as market value in earlier assessment years in assessee's own case. No material is produced before us by Revenue to show that written down value does not represent market value of vehicle. (4) 6. In view of foregoing conclusions, we find no error in order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and hence no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court. Hence, above tax cases are dismissed. (emphasis supplied) 6. Even in case on hand, there is no material produced before us by Revenue to show that written down value does not represent market value of vehicles. Therefore, said decision applies to facts of present case on all fours. 7. In such view of matter, these appeals are dismissed answering sole substantial question of law against Revenue and in favour of assessee. No costs. (R.S.J.) (R.K.J.) 19.3.2015 Index : No Internet : Yes sasi To: 1.The Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Bench "D", Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I Madurai. 4. Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax Special Range I, Madurai. (5) R.SUDHAKAR,J. and R.KARUPPIAH,J. (sasi) T.C.(A).Nos.1212 to 1218 of 2007 19.3.2015. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Madura v. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd