| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1989 SLG 2398 1989 SLD 2398 (1989) 177 ITR 188 |
Supreme Court of India
R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND RANGANATH MISRA, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND RANGANATH MISRA, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Commissioner of Wealth Tax
v.
Kasturbai Walchand
Law:
Section:
Section 25(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1956 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Whether section 25(1)(b) operates as a bar to revision application by assessee before Commissioner where appeal has been filed by revenue to Tribunal - Held, yes Facts The assessee held shares in a company. The issue relating to the methods adopted for the valuation of shares for the assessment years 1958-59 to 1960-61 ultimately went up to the Tribunal on an appeal by the Commissioner. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and held that the valuation of the shares of the same company on the relevant valuation dates determined by two valuers on arbitration in the case of another assessee should be taken as the valuation in the case of the assessee also. However, it did not reduce the valuation determined by the AAC as no appeals had been filed by the assessee. Meanwhile, however, during the pendency of the appeals before the Tribunal, the assessee preferred revision applications under section 25(1) to the Commissioner and contended that the valuation of the shares adopted by the AAC was unreasonable and excessive and should be duly modified. The Commissioner rejected the revision applications on the ground that they were incompetent in view of section 25(1)(b). On writ, the High Court took the view that section 25(1)(b) operated as a bar for a revision application by an assessee before the Commissioner only where the assessee had also filed an appeal before the Tribunal. It, therefore, held the revision applications to be competent and directed the Commissioner to entertain and dispose them of in accordance with law. On appeal by the revenue by special leave: Held Where an appeal is filed before the Tribunal against an order of the AAC, the impugned order merges in the order of the Tribunal when the appeal is disposed of on merits. If, meanwhile a revision application has been filed before the Commissioner against the same order of the AAC, it will not be open to the Commissioner to pass any order in revision against the order of the AAC as the latter will have merged with the order of the Tribunal. It is immaterial that the appeal and the revision application…
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