2002 (3) TMI 27 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the court should entertain a question of law in a reference after a long time.
- Inclusion of 1/6th share of wealth in the estate of the assessee.
- Admissibility of the appeal on the substantial question of law regarding the inclusion of the share in the estate.
- Precedents on entertaining substantial questions of law after a significant delay.

Analysis:

The High Court of Delhi deliberated on whether to entertain a question of law in a reference after a considerable period. The case involved the inclusion of a 1/6th share of wealth in the estate of the assessee, derived from the late H.H. Sir Sawai Man Singh. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had previously decided in favor of the assessee, holding that the share need not be included in the assessee's wealth. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) also concurred with this decision. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal, arguing that various related matters were pending before the court, urging the court to admit the appeal on the substantial question of law regarding the inclusion of the share in the estate.

Upon examination, the court found that no dispute had been raised previously regarding the non-inclusion of the 1/6th share in the assessee's wealth. It was noted that no appeal had been filed against the Tribunal's assessment orders for the assessee or the other co-sharers. The court emphasized that the issue had remained unchallenged for over 30 years, with no application filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. The court reviewed a compilation of Tribunal orders reflecting a consistent view over time, leading to the conclusion that the appeal should not be entertained under section 27A of the Act.

Drawing from legal precedents, the court highlighted the importance of challenging judgments promptly and consistently. Citing cases where Revenue failed to appeal against judgments, the court emphasized the need for a valid cause to challenge a decision after a significant delay. Relying on these precedents, the court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that even if a substantial question of law arose, it should not be permitted to be raised at that stage. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with no costs awarded in the case.