1996 (3) TMI 92 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves the interpretation of whether an executrix-assessee, who was assessed in a representative capacity and was also the sole legatee living in the building for which a benefit was claimed, is entitled to the benefit of section 7(4) under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.

Judgment Details:

The judgment pertains to a case where the net wealth of the estate of the deceased Maharaja Holkar of Indore was assessed in the hands of Maharani Sharmisthabai Holkar as the executrix of the will under section 16(3) read with section 19A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Maharaja Tukojirao passed away in 1978, leaving a will where the assessee, Smt. Sharmisthabai, was the sole legatee and beneficiary residing in the residential house covered under the will. The assessee claimed the benefit of section 7(4) of the Act, which was initially denied by the Wealth-tax Officer. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the benefit, but the Department filed appeals before the Tribunal challenging this decision.

The Tribunal, in its order, held that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of section 7(4) of the Act. Following this decision, the assessee filed applications under section 27(1) of the Act, leading to the Tribunal referring a question of law for the opinion of the High Court.

During the proceedings, no appearance was made on behalf of the applicant/assessee. The Department's counsel highlighted that the assessee, who was the sole legatee and beneficiary, had passed away without any legal representatives being appointed. Citing precedents, the counsel argued that the court may decline to answer the question due to the lack of necessary steps taken in the case.

Referring to previous judgments, the court emphasized that if the party at whose instance the reference is made fails to appear or take steps for the preparation of the case, the court is not obligated to answer the reference. In this case, as the assessee had passed away without any further actions being taken, the court dismissed the reference in default for the failure to proceed with the necessary steps.

Therefore, the court informed the Tribunal accordingly, concluding the judgment on the matter.