TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... really a prima facie observation. This is clear from the fact that both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the ITAT have directed the Wealth Tax Officer to re-examine the matter, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant herein. ITAT has also observed that the issues raised in the matter require investigation of facts. From all this, it is quite clear that the observations made in the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the ITAT, are prima facie observations and such observations, are made only for the purpose of remanding the matter to the Wealth Tax Officer for fresh consideration. No reason to interfere with the impugned orders and revoke the remand order by the Commissioner (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the ACWT dated 30/06/2008, is barred by limitation being made beyond period of one year as required u/s 17A(2) of the WT Act, and consequently the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 18(1)(c) are unsustainable/bad in law ? (ii) Whether the learned ITAT upon coming to the conclusion that there was no malafide intention on the part of the Assessee to delay the filing of the returns and it was due to oversight without any element of deliberateness, the ITAT was further right in law/justified in holding that Expl. (3) to Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act 1957, is attracted to Assessee's case for AY 2003-04 ? 3. The challenge in this Appeal is to the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , since, it is an issue of law and further, an issue, which goes to the root of the jurisdiction. For these reasons, Mr. Rivankar, submits that the aforesaid substantial questions of law are liable to be answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondent. 6. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by Mr. Rivankar and also perused record. We find that in this case, both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the ITAT have held that explanation 3 to Section 18 of the Wealth Tax Act is attracted. This is on the basis that for the assessment year 2003-04, the re-assessment notice was issued to the appellant prior to the appellant filing its returns. No doubt, the ITAT has also observed that the issue of limitatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue as to whether, explanation 3 to Section 18 of the Wealth Tax Act, is attracted or not, is a mixed question of law and facts and therefore, the Wealth Tax Officer will have to consider this issue as well. Needless to mention that the Wealth Tax Officer will have to afford an opportunity of hearing before deciding the matter in pursuance of the remand. The substantial questions of law as framed, therefore, cannot be answered in favour of the appellant, at this stage, as raised. 9. The Appeal is accordingly disposed off with the aforesaid clarification. The Wealth Tax Officer to dispose off the proceedings now remanded to him in accordance with law and on its own merits by treating the observations in the impugned order as only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
