TMI Blog1992 (4) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant assessment years, the applicant had included in his net wealth the total value of the assets of the Shri R. D. Birla Trust, after deducting therefrom the value of the life interest of two other beneficiaries instead of the capitalised value of his interest in the income and corpus of the trust ascertained on an actuarial basis. Similarly, the applicant had included in his net wealth the total value of the assets of the Ashok Kumar Birla Trust instead of the capitalised value of his interest in the income of the trust an actuarial basis. The Wealth-tax Officer accepted the valuation put by the assesee on his interest in these two trusts for the three assessment years in question. For the assessment year 1962-63, the applicant had preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on some other grounds. At this stage also, the applicant had not raised the question of mode of valuing his interest in the two trusts. The applicant, however, in his appeal before the Tribunal from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner sought to raise for the first time additional grounds for the assessment year 1962-63 in order to challenge the valuation put upon his interest i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Tribunal which is a common decision for the three assessment years, two questions were framed for reference to the High Court under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment year 1962-63. Two questions were also framed for the assessment year 1963-64 and two questions were framed for the assessment year 1964-65. A Division Bench of this court before whom this reference came up for hearing, by its order dated April 6, 1991, has directed that both the questions raised for the assessment year 1962-63 as well as question No. 2 raised for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65 be placed before a Full Bench. This is because the Tribunal had, inter alia, declined to allow the additional ground to be raised on the ground that it did not arise out of the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Karamchand Premchand Private Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 254. This decision of the Gujarat High Court which relates to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to allow an additional ground to be raised for the first time before it, has been relied upon by our High Court in the case of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. CIT [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right and justified in not permitting the assessee to raise before it the additional ground that the Wealth-tax Officer erred in including the total value of assets in Ashok Kumar Birla Trust instead of the capitalised value of his interest in the income of the said trust, as forming part of his wealth for the purpose of assessment under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?" This reference was argued before us along with Income-tax Reference No. 481 of 1976 and Income-tax Reference No. 45 of 1977 (Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom) [FB]). As far as the present reference is concerned, the relevant powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal are set out in sections 23 and 24 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Under section 23(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, "(a) at the hearing of an appeal, allow an appellant to go into any ground of appeal, not specified in the grounds of appeal ; (b) before disposing of an appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit or cause further inquiry to be made by the Wealth-tax Officer". Under sub-section (5) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l wording of sections 23(5) and 24(5) in this regard clearly shows that the powers of the Appellate Tribunal are identical with the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under the Wealth-tax Act, including the power of enhancement. Any controversy, therefore, which may have earlier existed relating to the powers of the Appellate Tribunal under the Income-tax Act, cannot, in any event, extend to the Appellate Tribunal under the Wealth-tax Act. The Tribunal, therefore, had jurisdiction, in the present case, to permit additional grounds to be raised even though these did not arise out of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal, however, had the discretion to allow or not to allow such additional grounds to be raised. We are not concerned here with this aspect of the question. Mr. Toprani, learned advocate appearing for the applicant, did seek to raise certain additional points before us. It was urged by him that though, under section 23(4)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, "the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may-at the hearing of an appeal, allow an appellant to go into any ground of appeal not specified in the grounds of appeal", there is in fact no discr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
