MAHARAJA AMRINDER SINGH versus THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

Citation: [2017] 14 S.C.R. 590 · Decided: 05-09-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017] I 4 S.C.R. 590 
MAHARAJA AMRINDER SINGH 
v. 
THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX 
(Civil Appeal No.1349 of 2007) 
SEPTEMBER 05, 2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
Wealth Tax Act. 1957 -s.27-A - Penalty levied upon appellant-
assessee hy Assessing Officer - income Tax Appellate Tribunal (JTAT) 
C decided in favour of the appellant - High Court in appeal by 
revenue u/s. 27A set aside the order of ITAT and restored the order 
of assessment passed by the Assessing officer - Justifiahilizv of -
On appeal. held: Section 27-A provides a remedy of appeal to the 
High Court against the order of ITAT and is pari matcria to s. l 00, 
CPC-For exercise o,f powers uls: JOO. CPC by High Court. existence 
D of substantial question o.f law is sine qua non and in the absence of 
such substantial question of law the appeal merits dismissal in 
limine -Appeal.filed uls.27-A has to be decided like a second appeal 
uls. JOO. CPC - Howeve1; in the instant case the High Court 
proceeded to decide the appeals filed by revenue uls.27A without 
E formulating the substantial question(s) of law - Matters remanded 
to High Court for deciding the appeals afresh after formulating 
substantial questions of /av.: if it so arises - Code of Civil Procedure. 
1908 - s.100. 
F 
Doctrines/Principles -
Principle of "legislation by 
incorporation" - s. 27-A of the 1957 Act provides a remedy of appeal 
to the High Court against the order of ITAT and is pari materia to 
s. l 00. CPC. 1908 - Held: Section 100. CPC is bodily !(fled from 
the Code and incorporated in s.27-A of the 1957 Act with minor 
additions and alterations by following the principle of "legislation 
by incorporation" - Wealth Tax Act. 1957 - s.27-A - Code of Civil 
G Procedure. 1908 - s.100. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Section 2 7-A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 
provides a remedy of appeal to the High Court against the order 
of the 1.ncomc Tax Appellate Tribunal and is modeled on existing 
H 
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The language 
590 
MAHARAJA AMRINDER SINGH v. THE COMMISSIONER OF 
591 
WEALTH TAX 
of Section 27-A of the 1957 Act and Section 100 of the CPC is 
A 
identical. Both the Sections arc, therefore, in pal'i '!tatel'ia. It is 
a case where Section 100 is bodily lifted ftom the Code and 
incorporated in Section 27-A of the 1957 Act with minor additions , 
and alterations by following the principle of "legislation by 
incorporation". [Para 7) (594-F] 
1.2 In order to admit the second appeal, what is required 
B 
to be made out by the appellant being sine qua non for exercise · · 
of powers under Section 100 of the CPC, is existence of 
"substantial question of law" arising in the case so as to empower 
the High Court to admit the appeal for final hearing by formulating 
C 
such question. In the absence of any substantial question of Jaw 
arising in appeal, the same merits dismissal in liminc on the 
ground that the appeal does not involve any substantial question 
of law within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC. (Para 9] (595-D] 
Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by. 
L.Rs., (2001) 3 SCC 179 : [2001] l SCR 948 - held 
applicable. 
D 
1.3 The interpretation of Section 100 equally applies to 
Section 27-A of the Act because firstly, both Sections provide a 
remedy of appeal to the High Court; Secondly, both Sections arc 
identically worded and i11 pari materia; Thirdly, Section 27-A is 
E 
enacted by following the principle of "legislation by 
incorporation"; fourthly, Section 100 is bodily lifted from the Code 
and incorporated as Section 27-A in the A~t; and lastly, since 
both Sections are akin to each other in all respects, the appeal 
filed under Section 27-A of the Act has-to be decided like a second 
F 
appeal under Section 100 of the Code. (Para 10) (595-F) 
1.4 On the facts of the present case, it is found that the 
High Court proceeded to decide the appeals without formulating 
the substantial qucstion(s) of law. Indeed, the High Court did not 
. make any effort to find out as to whether the appeals inv!>lv.ed 
G 
any substantial question(s) of law and, if so, which is/are that 
question(s) and nor it formulated such question(s), ifin i~s opinion, 
really arose in the appeals. The High Court failed to see that it 
"had jurisdiction to decide the appeals only on the question(s) so 
formulated and not beyond it. [Section 27(5)]. [Para 11] [595-G-
H; 596-A] 
-
H 
~-
592 
.A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.