9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -61, for which the corresponding valuation dates are March 31, 1958, March 31, 1959, and March 31, 1960, respectively. The respondent is a shareholder in Walchand and Co. P. Ltd. On each of the three valuation dates, she held 140 shares in the company. For the purpose of assessment under the Wealth-tax Act, the respondent adopted the valuation of the shares at their break-up value with paid-up capital and reserves as there was no market quotation for those shares. When making the assessment orders for each of the three assessment years, the Wealth-tax Officer rejected the valuation of the shares as claimed by the respondent and estimated their value on the basis of capitalisation of profits at six per cent for the assessment year 1960-61 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred revision applications on June 29, 1962, under subsection (1) of section 25 to the Commissioner of Wealth-tax in respect of the aforesaid assessment years and contended that the valuation of the shares adopted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was unreasonable and excessive and should be duly modified. The Commissioner made an order dated August 12, 1964, rejecting the revision applications on the ground that they were incompetent in view of clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Act. Against that order, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay and contended that the Commissioner had erred in dismissing the revision applications as incompetent. On October 10, 11, 1966, a learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -section (1) of section 25 of the Act operates as a bar to a revision application by an assessee before the Commissioner only where the assessee has also filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. According to the High Court, the bar does not come into operation against an assessee where the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal has been filed by the Revenue. It seems to us that the view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. Where an appeal is filed before the Appellate Tribunal against an order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the impugned order merges in the order of the Appellate Tribunal when the appeal is disposed of on merits. If, meanwhile, a revision application has been filed before the Commissioner against the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeals before the Appellate Tribunal with an application for condonation of delay under sub-section (3) of section 24, in case the period of limitation had expired and, accordingly, both the sets of appeals would have been disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal. In case the respondent came to know of the filing of the appeals by the Revenue before the Appellate Tribunal and had not yet applied in revision to the Commissioner, she should not have filed the revision applications but should have preferred her own appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. It must be noted that the Appellate Tribunal is a body superior to the Commissioner, as will be clear from sub-section (1) of section 26 which provides that an appeal will lie to the Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
