| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1978 SLG 786 1978 SLD 786 (1978) 114 ITR 38 |
Gujarat High Court
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 512 OF 1976 FEBRUARY 17, 1978
B.J. DIVAN, C.J. AND P.D. DESAI, J.
R.H. Mehta for the Petitioner. G.N. Desai and R.P. Bhatt for the
Respondent.
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 512 OF 1976 FEBRUARY 17, 1978
B.J. DIVAN, C.J. AND P.D. DESAI, J.
R.H. Mehta for the Petitioner. G.N. Desai and R.P. Bhatt for the
Respondent.
Poonjabhai Vanmalidas
v.
Wealth Tax Officer
Law:
Section:
Section 35, read with section 23, of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 – Rectification of mistakes – Assessment years 1965-66 to 1967-68 - Assessing Officer passed assessment orders on 22-2-1971 determining amount of net wealth on appeal, AAC reduced net wealth – By virtue of orders of AAC assessee become entitled to refund and consequential orders in light of orders of AAC were passed allowing refund to assessee – Subsequently, on 15-1-1976 Assessing Officer issued notices under section 35 purporting to rectify original assessment orders on grounds that there was mistake in calculation of tax as additional wealth-tax on immovable property was left out to be charged through oversight – Whether since said issue of levy of impugned additional wealth-tax was never dealt with in appellate order by AAC, for purposes of limitation under section 35(7)(b), period of four years had to be calculated-from date of said original order passed by Assessing Officer – Held, yes – Whether in view of above, since when impugned notices were issued, period of four years had expired, said notices were clearly time barred and hence wholly without jurisdiction -Held, yes FACTS The petitioner was assessed to wealth-tax as a HUF. For the assessment years in question, the respondent passed assessment order on 22-2-1971 ascertaining the immovable property and the net wealth. Notices of demand were issued under section 30 and necessary refund orders were issued and adjusted and ultimately the requisite amounts were paid by the petitioner. After adjustment of the refunds of some amounts notice of demand for the balance sum was issued and that amount was also paid by the petitioner. Against the assessment orders, the assessee went in appeal before the AAC who by his order dated 23-6-1971, reduced the net wealth of the petitioner under appeal before him. By virtue of the appellate orders passed by the AAC, the petitioner became entitled to refund in each of the three assessment years and the consequential orders in the light of the orders passed by the AAC were passed by the WTO on 30-3-1974, allowing a refund in each of the three assessment years. Thereafter, three notices were issued by the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492