COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX BOMBAY AND ANOTHER versus MRS. KASTURBAI WALCHAND & OTIIERS

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 131 · Decided: 28-03-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTII TAX BOMBAY 
A 
AND ANOTIIER 
v. 
MRS. KASTURBAI WALCHAND & OTIIERS 
MARCH 28, 1989 
-) 
B 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND RANGANATII MISRA, J.] 
• 
Wealth Tax Act, 1957-CI. (b) of Proviso to Sub-s. (1) of s. 
25-When an appeal against an order of the Appellate Assistant Com-
missioner by either party is pending before the Appellate Tribunal, a 
revision application to the Commissioner against the same order l' not c 
+ 
competent. 
Sub-s- (1) of s. 25 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 investing the 
Commissioner with the power to revise an order passed by any autho-
rity subordinate to him stipulates in cl. (b) of the proviso thereto that 
the power of revision shall not extend to an order which is the subject of D 
an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Appellate 
Tribunal. 
">r 
The respondent, a share-holder in a company, adopted, for the 
purpose of assessment under the Act, valuation of shares at their\break-
up values with paid up capital and reserves which was rejected 'by the 
E 
Wealth Tax Officer who estimated their value on the basis of capltalisa-
tion of profits for the assessment year 1960-61 and on the basis of the 
breal<-up value with certain modifications for the assessment years 
1958-59 and 1959-60. The respondent's appeals were partly allowed by 
. "" 
the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against which the Commissioner 
. .i 
of Wealth Tax preferred appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. The Appel-
F 
late Tribunal dismissed the appeals. During the pendency of the appeals 
before the Tribunal, the respondent preferred revision applications to 
the Commissioner of Wealth Tax and contended that the valuation of 
the shares adopted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was 
unreasonable and excessive and should be duly mudified. The Commis-
~ 
sioner rejected the applications on the ground that they were incompe-
G 
tent in view of cl. (b) of the proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 25. Against that 
order the respondent filed a writ petition which was allowed by a Single 
Judge of the High court holding that the revision applications were 
competent since the aforesaid provision would not operate as a bar 
against an assessee in a case where the appeal before the Appellate 
Tribunal is filed by the Revenue. An appeal filed against his order was 
H 
131 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: Where an appeal is tiled before the Appellate Tribunal 
against an order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the 
B · impugned order merges in the order of the Appellate Tribunal when the 
c 
. appeal is disposed of on merits. If meanwhile a revision application has 
been filed before the Commissioner against the same order of the 
Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it will not be open to the Commis-
sioner to pass any order in revision against the order of the Appellate 
Assistant Commissioner as the latter will have merged with the order of 
the Appellate Tribunal. It is immaterial that the appeal and the revision 
application have not been filed by the same party. This would be plainly 
so as in the present case, the subject matter of the appeal before the 
Appellate Tribunal is the same as that of the revision application before 
the Commissioner. [135B-D] 
D 
In this case the High Court omitted to consider that the appeals 
filed before the Tribunal had been disposed of, aud the impugned order 
of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had merged in the order of the 
Appellate Tribunal rendering the revision applications infrnctuous. 
What the respondent should have done was to tile her own appeals 
before the Appellate Tribunal. It must be noted that the Appellate 
E 
Tribunal is a superior body to the Commissioner, as is clear from sub-s. 
(1) of s. 26 which provides that an appeal shall lie to the Appellate 
Tribunal from an order under sub-s. (2) of s. 25 of the Commissioner. 
There would have been no difficulty in the Appellate Tribunal consider-
ing the appeals of both parties and passing suitable orders in regard to 
the valuation of the shares. I 135F-G; 136A-B] 
F 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLAIB JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 88 
to 93 to 1974. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.1973 of the Bombay 
High Court in Appeal Nos. 102 to 107 of 1966. 
Dr. V. Gauri Shankar and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellants. 
Nemo for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
+ 
-f 
COMMR. OF
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.