Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SRI SHYAM PRAKASH versus CWT

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sri Shyam Prakash v. CWT - W.T.R. No. 41 of 1989 [2005] RD-AH 592 (1 March 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.37

W.T.R. No. 41 of 1989

Shri Shyam Prakash, Sitapur vs. The Commisisoner of Wealth-tax, Lucknow.

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad  has referred the following questions of law under Section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court:

"1. Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in confirming the order of Wealth-tax Officer without considering the fact that the Wealth-tax Officer has not complied with the direction given by the A.A.C. and has not given any details or basis for estimate?

2. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in not considering the issue of deduction of value of house property under section 5(1)(iv) while issue was specifically raised.?"

The Reference relates to the Assessment Years 1974-75 to 1977-78.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows:

The applicant has been assessed under the Act as an individual. The relevant valuation date was 31st March.  Originally, the assessments were framed taking the net wealth at Rs. 2,00,000/- for the Assessment Year 1974-75 and Rs. 2,50,000/- for the Assessment Years 1975-76 to 1977-78. These assessments were set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to be framed afresh. The Assessing Authority, thereafter, issued notice under Section 16(2) of the Act in response to which the applicant's counsel attended. However, no details were furnished and, therefore, the Wealth-tax Officer repeated the original assessment in all the four years. Feeling aggrieved the applicant preferred separate appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who has upheld the order of the Assessing Authority on the following grounds:

"Originally the assessments were framed taking the net wealth at Rs. 2,00,000/- for A.Y. 1974-75 and Rs. 2,50,000/- for A.Ys. 75-76, 76-77 and 77-78 each. These assessments were, however, set aside by the A.A.C. to frame the assessments afresh. After giving opportunity to the appellant, the W.T.O. has framed the assessment adopting the same figures of assessed wealth as originally determined by the W.T.O. as the appellant failed to produce any details."

Still feeling aggrieved the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which has upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

We have heard Sri R.R.Kapoor, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A.N.Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the Revenue.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the claim of deduction under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act was raised before all the authorities and, therefore, incumbent upon them to adjudicate on the said issue.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Authority, Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, we find that the Assessing Authority had assessed the net wealth of the applicant, which implies that all deduction and exemption permissible under the Act have taken care of. We further find that the application had not provided any detail or particular of the house, for which he has claimed exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. In the absence of any effective finding the applicant has not been allowed to claim exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. We are of the considered opinion that the authorities have not committed any illegality in not considering the said claim.  

We, accordingly, answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.

1.3.05

MZ.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.