TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?" The factual position in a nut-shell is as follows : The assessee had filed a return of his wealth on September 8, 1972, declaring a wealth of Rs. 4,56,376 for the assessment year 1972-73. Subsequently, he made a voluntary disclosure of his additional wealth and in the revised return filed, declared a net wealth of Rs. 6,80,826. On the basis of the revised return the assessment was completed on March 31, 1976, on a net wealth of Rs. 7,53,087. The assessee was the owner of a half share in a flat in Himalya House at Delhi. In both the original and revised returns, the value was shown at Rs. 60,000. This value was not included in the net wealth of the assessee in the assessment made by the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g lack of jurisdiction was pressed into service before the Tribunal. In essence it was submitted that the order of assessment did not survive after the appeal was disposed of by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal accepted this plea. On being moved for making a reference, the question has been referred for our opinion. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessee in spite of the notice. The main point for adjudication is whether a point which was not the subject-matter of appeal can be said to have been decided and the doctrine of merger would apply also in respect of such an issue. The principles relating to the doctrine of merger have been elaborated in various judgments. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available or not but that does not amount to saying that the order appealed against merges into the appellate order dismissing the appeal in limine as barred by time." These principles were noted by this court in CIT v. Eurasia Publishing House (P.) Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 381. In State of Orissa v. Krishna Stores [1997] 104 STC 594 ; [1997] 3 SCC 246, 252, the apex court observed as follows (page 600 of 104 STC) : "In the case of State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. [1967] 19 STC 144 ; [1967] AIR 1967 SC 681, this court, however, observed that the doctrine of merger was not a doctrine of rigid and universal application. The application of the doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order in each case and the sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
