TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether 1/6th share of the wealth shown by the assessee in his wealth-tax return, as having been derived from the estate of the late H.H. Sir Sawai Man Singh would be included in the wealth of the assessee. The assessee filed a return of wealth declaring net wealth of Rs. 29,32,569, Allegedly he had not shown 1/6th share in the estate of the late H.H. Sir Sawai Man Singh in the past, purported to be on the ground that the status issue involved in the matter is pending before this court. The said wealth being 1/6th in the estate of the late H. H. Sir Sawai Man Singh was added by the Assessing Officer subject to rectification under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on the final outcome of the decision of the High Court. An appeal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder. The contention of the appellant appears to be that several matters are pending before this court, which are as follows: (a) CIT v. Jagat Singh (I. T. R. No. 438 of 1983 assessment year 1972-73); (b) CIT v. Bhawani Singh (I. T. R. No. 9 of 1982 assessment year 1973-74); (c) CIT v. Prithvi Raj (HUF) (I. T. R. No. 222 of 1984 assessment year 1975-76); (d) CIT v. Bhavani Singh (I. T. R. Nos. 297 and 298 of 1981 assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69); (e) CIT v. Bhavani Singh (HUF) (I. T. R. No. 318 of 1981 assessment year 1970-71). It has been contended that in the aforementioned situation this court should admit the appeal on the substantial question of law, i.e., whether 1/6th share in the estate of Maharaja Man Singh should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew has been taken by the Tribunal for a long time. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where this court should entertain this appeal in terms of section 27A of the Act. In Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal [2001] 249 ITR 219, the apex court observed as under: "The order under challenge in this appeal by the Revenue followed the earlier judgment of the same High Court in the case of Pradip Ramanlal Sheth v. Union of India [1993] 204 ITR 866. Learned counsel for the Revenue states that the papers before us suggest that a special leave petition was preferred against that judgment but he has no instructions as to what happened thereafter. Learned counsel for the respondents states that thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Collector of Central Excise v. Hindustan Hydraulic (P.) Ltd. with Collector of Central Excise v. Kay Jay Engineering [1999] 4 SCC 655, the apex court held in the following terms: "3. We find from the order under appeal that these are not different from the other cases in the sense that the Tribunal has followed its earlier different orders in these appeals as well. Moreover, these appeals were admitted, as noticed already, to be heard along with other connected appeals. We do not find any good ground to pass an order on merits in these appeals alone as it is on fact that the appeals filed against the order of the Tribunal relied on for passing the common order under appeals were dismissed by this court on the ground of limitation. Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
