| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1983 SLG 1100 1983 SLD 1100 (1983) 144 ITR 345 |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
WT CASE No. 2 OF 1981
C.S.P. SINGH, J
Ashok Bhan with Ajay Kumar Mittal for the Applicant. M.L. Sarin for the
Respondent.
WT CASE No. 2 OF 1981
C.S.P. SINGH, J
Ashok Bhan with Ajay Kumar Mittal for the Applicant. M.L. Sarin for the
Respondent.
Commissioner of Wealth Tax
v.
Smt. Savitri Devi
Law:
Section:
Section 27(3), read with section 17(1)(a) and (b), of the wealth-tax act, 1957-reference to high court-question of fact-assessee died after filing return for assessment year 1968-69-wto completed assessment thereafter-in subsequent estate duty case, there was audit objection regarding escapement of interest income on mortgage money and under valuation of certain properties-wto reopened wealth-tax assessment on the basis of that objection and completed reassessment after expiry of four years of original assessment-aac set aside reassessment holding that section 17(1)(a) did not apply as assessee had disclosed impugned interest income in his return and section 17(1)(b) was ruled out as being time - barred-tribunal upheld aac's order and rejected revenue's reference application- whether any referable question of law arose from tribunal's order-held, on facts, no Facts The assessee died after filing his wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1968-69. The assessment was duly completed afterwards. In the meantime, estate duty proceedings were also initiated in regard to which there was an audit objection that a certain amount representing interest on mortgage money had escaped estate duty and that the value of certain land and buildings had been wrongly taken at book value instead of market value. Based on this audit objection, the WTO reopened the wealth-tax assessment for the assessment year 1968-69 and completed the reassessment after making additions. In appeal, the AAC found that section 17(1)(a) did not apply to the case as the deceased assessee had disclosed the said amount of interest in his return and that reassessment under section 17(1)(b) of the Act was time-barred. The AAC, therefore, cancelled the reassessment. The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal and also rejected the reference application of the revenue. On application under section 27(3): Held The sole question for consideration in the instant case was whether the reassessment could be justified in terms of section 17(1)(a ). It was agreed that the reassessment was based on the audit note on the question of including Interest in the taxable turnover and that the assessee had duly…
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