LexJ.M. BHATIA, APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX & ORS. versus J.M. SHAH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B c D E F G H 872 J.M. BllATIA, APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX & ORS. v. J.M. SHAH SEPTEMllER 19, 1985 [V .o. TULZAPllRKAR AND SABYASACHI MUKllARJI, JJ. J Wealth Tax Act 1957, S• 5(l)(viii) and 35 - Assessment order passed under s. 5(l)(viii) - No appeal preferred - Assess- ment Order - Whether final - Whether it is liable to be modified or rectified under s. 35. The respondent-assessee was assessed for wealth tax purposes. on the total wealth of Rs. 6,07 ,690 which included jewellery and ornaments of the value of Rs. 4, 15, 942 for the assesSlllellt year 1969-70. In an appeal preferred by him, the Assistant Appellate Comaissioner by his order dated 26th June 1970 excluded from her net wealth, the value of the aforesaid jewellery and ornaments on the ground that they were intended for personal us-. of the assessee under s. 5(l)(vi11) of the Wealth Tax Act 1957. No further appeal was filed against that decision of the AAC by either side. On August 10, 1971, the Act was amende<i retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1983 and under s. 5(l)(viii) the words, "but not including jewellery" were added at the end of that clause and these words were deemed to have been inserted right from April 1, 1963. In view of this amended provision the AAC served a . notice on the respondent - assessee a:Jd passed an order dated 22nd February 1972 under s. 35 of the Act rectifying the original order dated 26th June 1970 whereby he withdrew the ezemption already granted to her in respect of the jewellery and ornaments on the ground that his predecessor had coamitted a mistake apparent on the face of the record in excluding the said jewellery and ornaments. The assessee-respo;,.ient challenge«! the said order by filing a writ petition in the High Court on the ground that since the original assessment had been completed long before the Amending Act was passed and had also become final as no appeal vas preferred against that by either side, the amending Act could not reach or. affect such completed asseFoment and in any event the J.M. BHATIA v. J.M. SllAll 873 question whether the Amending Act covered compl.oted assessment or not was a debatable question and therefore, the AAC had no power to rectify his predecessor's order. The High Court set aside the impugned order of the AAC holding that the question whether the Anpndlng Act applied to assessments which were already completed was a highly debatable question and that it was not a case of an error apparent on the face of the record which entitled the AAC to rectify his predecessor's order. All.owing the appeal by the appellant-Revenue, HELD: l. This is not a case where the resort to the rectification power was required to be made by reference to any provision in the Amending Act but de horse the original section, 118111ely 35(7) of the Wealth Tax Act. The AAC's vrder dated June 26, 1970 had not become final in the literal sense of the wrd notwithstanding the fact th&t no appeal had been preferred against that order or that the requisite period for appeal was allowed to expire. The said order was and continued to be liable to be modified under s. 35(7) of the Act and in this view of the matter the assessee herein also would not be in a position to invoke the principle of finality of orders or the sanctity of the existing rights which are said to have been acquired by her uno!P.r the initial order. [877 F-H) In the instant case, the proceedings for rectification of original order dated 26th June 1970 were undertaken by the AAC in January 1972. It was well within four years of period of limita- tion available to him under s. 35 of Wealth Tax Act. Therefore, . the rectifir.ation order passed by the AAC is restored. [877 E-F) ll.Jt. Venkatachalaw, Inc: tax Officer Vo &Dbay Dyeing and llpgpfact:uriQ& Co. Ltd. 34 ITR 143 followed. h"" tax Officer,. V Circle, Madras & Anr. v. S.L ffaM!m!Jah 44 ITR 809 distinguished. <'...Ussioner of Wealth-tax v. Aruodbati Balkrialma 77 I.T.B.. 505, Vollart Brothers v. Incme Tax Officer 82 ITR 50, Delb1 Cloth and GeDeral llillB Co, Ltd. v. 1- Tax Co-fpl._.- AIB. 1927 PC 242 and Colonial Sagar Refining Co. V• Irving (1905) .i.e. 369 referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 680 of 1974. From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.1973 of the Boi-nbay High Court in Misc. Petition No. 285 of 1972. A B· c D E F G H 874 SUPREME COURT
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.