Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 1176 1982 SLD 1176 (1982) 137 ITR 243
Madhya Pradesh High Court
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CASE No. 194 OF 1980
G.G. SOHANI AND K.N. SHUKLA, JJ.
G.M. Chaphekar for the Applicant. R.C. Mukati for the
Respondent.

Manaklal Motilal Agrawal

v.

Commissioner of Gift-tax

Law:

Section:

Section 22 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 - Commissioner (Appeals) - Whether Commissioner (Appeals) has power as well as jurisdiction to set aside GTO's order and remand case to him instead of quashing his order - Held, yes FACTS The assessee converted his proprietary business into a partnership business transferring 50 per cent share to his son and two other persons. In the Gift-tax proceedings the assessee filed a nil return and contended that the transaction did not amount to a gift. The GTO estimated the value of the gift and assessed it accordingly. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the transaction amounted to a gift and the assessee was liable to pay gift-tax thereon. He, however, found that the GTO did not afford proper opportunity to the assessee for valuation of the assets and calculation of the goodwill. He, accordingly, set aside the assessment and remanded the case to the GTO to make a fresh assessment after giving full opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Before the Tribunal the assessee contended that the order of the GTO lacked basic details and it was incomplete and, therefore, it should have been quashed altogether and not merely set aside with a further direction to make a fresh assessment. The Tribunal rejected this contention and held that in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside the assessment and remanding the case to the GTO for recomputation. On reference: HELD The question before the Tribunal was whether the Commissioner (Appeals) should have quashed the assessment instead of remanding the case to the GTO with the direction to make a fresh computation. It is clear that the Commissioner (Appeals) has the jurisdiction, under section 22(5) to pass such order as he thinks fit which will include an order of remand. It was not obligatory on his part under the scheme of the Act and the powers conferred on him to quash the order of the GTO. The assessee was unable to show in what manner the order of the Tribunal confirming the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the case was contrary to law. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that Commissioner (Appeals)…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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