TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the property on the relevant valuation dates and the Revenue has not been able to point out any material on record to dispute the said finding of fact. - Tribunal's order is upheld on the merits, without going into any discussion on the issue of limitation. The Tribunal was right in law and on facts in cancelling the order made by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under section 25(2) - - - - - Dated:- 10-8-2005 - Judge(s) : D. A. MEHTA., MS. H. N. DEVANI. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by D.A. Mehta J.-The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "C", has referred the following question under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ("the Act"), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax: "Whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income/wealth in the returns already filed and in the case of declaration under the scheme, an assessee would become entitled to avail of immunity from penalty/prosecution. Accordingly, the assessee filed revised returns for all the three years on September 17,1986, disclosing jewellery worth Rs. 40,000, Rs. 45,000 and Rs. 60,000 which had not been disclosed in the original returns. The assessee paid self-assessment tax under section 15B of the Act while filing the revised returns. The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 17 of the Act, but vide communication dated September 17,1986, the assessee informed the Assessing Officer to treat the revised returns already filed as returns in response to the notice under section 17 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rice agreed at Rs. 11,25,000. That the valuation date for the assessment year 1982-83 being October 27, 1981, and the agreement for sale having been entered into on September 3, 1981, the assessee had not disclosed correct wealth. That subsequently, in fact, the property had been sold out at the agreed price on November 9,1982. In so far as the earlier two years were concerned, namely, the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, the Commissioner did not accept that the gross rent fetched by the property was correct rent considering the location of the property and the surrounding development. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The order of the Commissioner was challenged on the ground of limitation as well as on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the property in question on the relevant valuation dates. Therefore, according to the Tribunal, there was no error in the assessments framed by the Assessing Officer, and hence, no prejudice had occasioned to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, the Tribunal did not uphold the order of the Commissioner on the merits also. Mr. B.B. Naik, learned standing counsel for the applicant-Revenue, has been heard. Though served, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent-assessee. In the light of the facts narrated hereinbefore, in the fact-situation of the present case, it is not necessary to enter into the controversy as to whether the order of the Commissioner made under section 25(2) was or was not barred by limitation. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
