Law:

Section:

Section 25 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957-Revision-Assessee did not claim exemption of jewellery as intended for personal use under section 5(1)(viii) [as stood prior to 1-4-1963] in return-Assessment completed by WTO and accepted by assessee-Revision petition claiming exemption under section 5(1)(viii) filed by assessee on the basis of a supreme court much after expiry of time allowed for such petition-Whether revision petition misconceived and liable to be dismissed-Held, on facts, yes Facts For the assessment years from 1957-58 to 1967-68, the assessee filed wealth-tax returns disclosing her net wealth including the jewellery therein but did not claim any exemption in respect of jewellery under section 5(1 )(viii) as an article intended for personal use. The assessee also did not file any revised returns. The returns were accepted by the WTO and the assessments were finalised. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. Arundhati Balakrishna [1970] 77 ITR 505 in which the Court held that exemption in respect of jewellery intended for personal use would be available to assessee under section 5(1)(vii) irrespective of the limited exemption available under section 5(1)(xv) as it stood at the relevant time, the assessee filed a revision petition on 3-4-1970 before the Commissioner praying that the exemption under section 5(1)(viii) may be allowed to her in respect of jewellery intended for personal use in the aforesaid assessment year. The revision petition was dismissed by the Commissioner on 3-10-1970 on the ground (i) that it was time-barred; and (ii) that the petitioner was not prevented by sufficient cause from impugning her assessment orders within the time allowed. On reference; Held The revision petition was misconceived irrespective of the question of existence of sufficient cause for delay. The petitioners never claimed exemption, before filing the revision petitions, as contemplated by section 5(1)(viii) [as it stood before its amendment]. The WTO simply accepted the returns of the petitioners in this behalf and there was nothing by which the petitioners could be said to have locus standi to even approach the Commissioner by way of…

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