| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1983 SLG 850 1983 SLD 850 (1983) 141 ITR 578 |
Madras High Court
SEPTEMBER 29, 1981TAX CASE Nos. 459 TO 465 OF 1977.
SETHURAMAN AND BALASUBRAHMANYAN, JJ.
J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for the Applicant. S.V. Subramaniam for the
Respondent.
SEPTEMBER 29, 1981TAX CASE Nos. 459 TO 465 OF 1977.
SETHURAMAN AND BALASUBRAHMANYAN, JJ.
J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for the Applicant. S.V. Subramaniam for the
Respondent.
Commissioner of Wealth Tax
v.
S.A.P. Annamalai
Law:
Section:
Section 35 of the wealth-tax act, 1957-Rectification of mistakes-Apparent from record-Assessment years 1962-63 to 1968-69-Pursuant to supreme court decision in arundhati balkrishna's case, commissioner allowed exemption on jewellery-Subsequently, when section 5(1)(viii ) was amended retrospectively from 1-4-1963 to exclude jewellery from exemption, commissioner rectified his orders so as to withdraw exemption-Whether rectification made was valid for all years except assessment year 1962-63-Held, yes Facts Pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in the case of CWT v. Arundhati Balkrishna [1970] 77 ITR 505, the Commissioner deleted the value of the jewellery included in the assessed wealth of the assessee for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1968-69. However, when the exemption was withdrawn by the insertion of section 5(1)(viii) with retrospective effect from 1-4-1963, the Commissioner rectified his orders under section 35 so as to restore the original assessments. On appeal, the Tribunal held that the applicability of the amended provision was a debatable point, rendering the Commissioner's earlier order unrectifiable under section 35. On reference : Held The Commissioner, in the instant case, had sought to apply the new provision to restore in the assessments the value of the articles of jewellery on the basis of admitted materials and there was no question of debate on the given facts as to whether there was jewellery, and hence no question of a debatable error. However, since the law in force as on the first day of assessment year would be the law governing the computation of wealth as on the valuation date, and since the amended provision came into force only on 1-4-1963, the Commissioner's original order in respect of assessment year 1962-63 was not capable of rectification. The rectification orders passed for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1968-69 were legally valid. Case review CWT v. Kamala Ganapathi Subramaniam [1981] 127 ITR 175 (Mad.) applied. Cases referred to CWT v. Kamala Ganapathi Subramaniam [1981] 127 ITR 175 (Mad.), J.M. Shah v. J.M. Bhatia, AAC [1974] 94 ITR 519(Bom.), CWT v. Arti Goenka [1980] 121 ITR 632 (Mad.), CWT v. Mrs. Arundhati…
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