1970 (4) TMI 4 - SC - Wealth-tax

Instructions or directions shall be given by the Board so as to interfere with the discretion of the AAC of Wealth-tax in the exercise of his appellate functions. It does not however imply that the Board may give any directions or instructions to the WTO or to the Commissioner in exercise of his quasi-judicial function and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner - Assessee s appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
- Claim of depreciation allowance on plant, building, and machinery under the Wealth-tax Act for assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59.
- Commissioner's authority and judgment influenced by the Board of Revenue.
- Interpretation of section 25 of the Wealth-tax Act regarding quasi-judicial powers.
- Misapprehension of jurisdiction by the Commissioner.
- Reference to Board's Circulars and instructions in decision-making process.
- Lack of independent judgment by the Commissioner.
- Setting aside the Commissioner's order and directing for proper disposal of revision applications.

Analysis:

The appellant-company claimed depreciation allowance on assets for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 under the Wealth-tax Act. The Wealth-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the valuation method based on certified balance sheets. The company then filed revision applications before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, challenging the rejection of applications. The Supreme Court noted the importance of following the proper appeal procedures but entertained the appeals due to a significant principle at stake regarding the Commissioner's judgment influenced by the Board of Revenue.

The Court examined the provisions of section 25 of the Wealth-tax Act, emphasizing that the power conferred is quasi-judicial, requiring an unbiased consideration of objections and adherence to principles of natural justice. It highlighted that the Commissioner must not allow external influences to dictate decisions, as seen in this case where the Commissioner's judgment seemed to align with the Board's directions rather than independent assessment.

Throughout the judgment, references were made to entries in the case sheet maintained by the Commissioner, indicating a pattern of seeking and following instructions from the Board of Revenue in decision-making processes. The Court criticized the Commissioner for not exercising independent judgment and for misinterpreting the nature of his jurisdiction by relying on external directives rather than making decisions based on his own assessment.

In light of the Commissioner's failure to uphold the quasi-judicial nature of his powers and the undue influence of the Board of Revenue on his decisions, the Court set aside the Commissioner's order. It directed that the revision applications be reconsidered and decided in accordance with the law, free from any external instructions. The Court also awarded costs to the company and allowed the appeals based on these findings.