TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the Tribunal was right in entertaining the new ground which did not arise out of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and also out of the assessment order of the Wealth-tax Officer ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the Revenue to raise altogether a new point that the property consisted of two houses and not one as was accepted by the wealth-tax appellate authority ?" The facts giving rise to this matter are that the assessee owned a house at No. 568, M.G. Road, Khandwa. The Wealth-tax Officer valued it at Rs. 6,58,800 for the assessment year 1984-85 for assessment of wealth-tax and declined to grant exemption under section 7(4) of the Act, on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 7(4) in respect of any accommodation in her possession for residential use in both the houses and she is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) in respect of the houses if they are found to be quite separate and independent." The assessee thereafter sought a reference of the abovestated questions and that is how we are seized of the matter. The assessee's primary submission is that since the issue of property comprising two houses was not raised before the Wealth-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by the Revenue, it should not have been so raised before the Tribunal and that should not have been entertained by the Tribunal. In other words, it is canvassed that the Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to entertain t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate Tribunal in case he was not satisfied as to the correctness of any order passed by a DCA or a Commissioner (Appeals) under section 23, but, that by no logic could be construed to mean that a new plea or ground related to the same subjectmatter could not be taken before the Tribunal. This provision has nothing to do with the point in issue raised in this reference and only deals with the situation where the Commissioner could direct filing of appeal before the Tribunal if he was not satisfied as to the correctness of any order passed by the prescribed Revenue forums. The reliance placed by learned counsel on the two judgments supra is equally misplaced. As a matter of fact when we read between the lines both the judgments rule that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the Tribunal noticed that both the forums below had missed vital facts as to the nature of property. It may as well be that the plea of the property comprising two houses was taken for the first time before the Tribunal but this did not constitute a separate subject-matter than the one under appeal. Therefore, even if it was to be treated as a new plea or ground, touching the subject-matter of appeal to that extent the Tribunal was justified in entertaining it and remanding the matter to the Wealth-tax Officer for reassessment. Such a course could not be said to be causing any prejudice to the assessee. Nor can it be said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
