TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. 2. The facts briefly stated are that assessee's returns of wealth were accepted under section 16(1) of the Act onMarch 20, 1987. In the aforesaid assessed wealth, the deduction of entire municipal taxes on house property including the portion which was treated as exempt under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act was allowed. It is seen from record that in assessment years 1978-79 and 1980-81, the proportionate liabilities of municipal taxes attributable to the portion of the house, treated as exempt was disallowed and this disallowance was confirmed on appeal by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal vide its order datedDecember 10, 1986. Taking note of aforesaid order of ITAT, the WTO disallowed proportionate liabilities through rectificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act. She accordingly supported the impugned order. 4. We have given careful thought to the rival submissions of the parties and examined material on record in the light of submissions advanced. The order of the Assessing Officer under section 35 is based upon order of the Tribunal given under similar circumstances. The fact is not in dispute. The assessee's objection that said order of ITAT was available and in the knowledge of the Assessing Officer when assessment was made under section 16(1) and, therefore, rectification was bad in law, is without any substance and is hereby rejected. Likewise, we are not concerned with the cases of Shri Ram Parkash and Smt. Saraswati Devi in which the entire liability of m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be found out even on the basis of the ITAT's orders either in the case of this very assessee or in the case of other assessees." We have considered above decision of Hyderabad Bench as also decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court relied to by the Bench. The facts in the case of Singh Poultry Ltd. were quite peculiar and anomalies and inconsistencies which had crept in the record due to orders of different authorities were rightly directed to be cleared through rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. The general proposition that a mistake apparent from record can be found even on the basis of ITAT order in the case of the assessee or in the case of other assessees, do not emerge as per the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the literal sense of the word and if as a result of the judgment of this court in Raipur Manufacturing Company's case, the orders disclosed a mistake apparent from the record, the assessee was entitled to apply for rectification and that is what he has done in the present case." Another important legal proposition laid by Their Lordships is found in the following observations :-- "We are of the opinion that the submission is not well-founded. It is true that the Wealth-tax Officer did not have before him the decision of this court in Raipur Manufacturing Company's case or that of the Supreme Court in Kasoram Industries and Cotton Mills' case when he passed the assessment orders in the petitioner's cases and that both the decisions we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he view taken is so absurd or unreasonable that no person properly instructed under the law could take such a view. This has to be done without raising any debate. In some cases it may be possible to establish a mistake apparent from record without any decision of superior court or authority. In other cases, it may not be so. No rule of universal application can be laid down. The decisions of the Supreme Court or of jurisdictional High Court, on account of constitutional provisions would rule out and leave no scope for any debate. This rule may not be applicable to decisions of other authorities. In the case in hand is we would presently show, there is demonstrative evidence to show that legal issue involved is highly debatable and proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not hit. The admitted position is that only a part of the value of the property is exempt. The property as such is chargeable and is charged to wealth-tax. In the circumstances, we find it difficult to hold that the property is not chargeable to wealth-tax. The result must follow that the debt herein is not incurred in relation to a property which is not chargeable to wealth-tax. Since the answer cannot be that the property is not chargeable to wealth tax, we are inclined to answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. With respect, we find ourselves in agreement with the view expressed by Balasubrahmanyan, J. in his dissenting judgment in the Full Bench case of the Madras High Court in CIT v. K.S. V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
