TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l has also taken a view that the Pune Bench view was required to be followed. However, while actually following such view, the Appellate Tribunal proceeded to dismiss all the Appeals instituted by the present applicants, instead of following the same course of action as was adopted by the Tribunal, Pune Bench. Appeals instituted by the present applicants, insofar as assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67 were required to be partly allowed by the Appellate Tribunal and only the Appeals concerning the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 could have been dismissed. Inclusion in the net wealth of the assessee the amount due to the assessee by certain parties in Portugal - HELD THAT:- As relying on M/S SHIV SHAKTI FLOUR MILLS (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [ 2020 (3) TMI 182 - SUPREME COURT] Tribunal was not justified in law in confirming the inclusion in the net wealth of the assessee as amount due to the parties (the Lisbon fund). - WEALTH TAX REFERENCE NO. 3 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 5-3-2020 - M.S. SONAK SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ. Mr. S.S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vinita Palyekar, Advocate for the Applicants. Ms. Susan Linhares, Standing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t's wife, insofar as assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67 are concerned, but, dismissed the Appeals for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. 5. Mr. Kantak, the learned Senior Advocate then pointed out that the Appellate Tribunal, in the present case, in its judgment and order dated 08.02.1977 had in fact relied upon the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, Pune Bench and stated that it finds itself in complete agreement, both, with the view that the Tribunal, Pune Bench has expressed and with the decision that is given on this issue. Thereafter, however, by the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal proceeded to dismiss all the Appeals. 6. Mr. Kantak, the learned Senior Advocate submits that once, the Appellate Tribunal had agreed with the view expressed by Tribunal, Pune Bench, there was no question of dismissal of all the Appeals, but, the same course of action as was followed by the Tribunal, Pune Bench, was required to be followed in case of these applicants as well. 7. According to us, Mr. Kantak's submission deserves to be accepted. Once, the Tribunal, Pune Bench ruled that Rule 1D of the said Act could have been invoked prospectively and such vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecame applicable to Goa. It is more than 30 years since the matter is hanging fire. For assessment years 1964-65 to 68-69 the matter is before the High Court, on a reference by the assessees. From 69-70 to 79-80, the matter is before the Tribunal. The CIT (Appeals) had confirmed the addition on this point, but the assessees appealed. There was difference of opinion among the AM JM on the admissibility of a MP, since the petitioner contended that the matter was concluded without taking into account the fact that the Tribunal did not take into account the fact that Portugal had barred remittances to India. The Third Member decision is yet to come. The assessees would appear to be making frantic efforts to have the matter disposed of by the Third Member. The subsequent 10 years (Assessment Years 80-81 to 89- 90) form the next stage. As usual, the additions were made. However, these additions were deleted by the CIT (A), in fact, by two successive CsIT(A). They took into account, the following salient points for taking a view, different from those of the earlier CIT (A). (1) The claim itself was barred by limitation (under article 309 of PCC), the claim cannot be enforced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Lisbon fund. The Tribunal, allowed the Appeals where relief was denied to the assessee and dismissed the Appeals where relief was already granted to the assessee. 14. Ordinarily, therefore, we see no good reason as to why the same reasons are not prevailing when it comes to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69. In fact, the Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench, which disposed off the 20 matters or for that matter, the aforesaid letter dated 29.03.1994 merely records that the Reference for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69 are pending before this Court and therefore, the same are not considered. 15. However, Ms. Linhares, the learned Standing Counsel pointed out that the position for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69 is required to be construed differently because the applicants had placed no material on record to indicate that for these assessment years, the recovery of the Lisbon fund was not possible and that the same was time barred. 16. Insofar as the contention of recovery being time barred is concerned, perhaps, Ms. Linhares may be right. However, the aforesaid communication dated 29.03.1994 is really not based only on the recovery of the debt been time b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
