1999 (11) TMI 37 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to revise assessment orders under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act.
2. Validity of rule 2B(2) under the Wealth-tax Act.

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to revise assessment orders under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act:

The petitioner, a Hindu undivided family assessed to wealth-tax, challenged a notice by the Commissioner proposing to revise assessments for specific years. The petitioner argued that as the assessments were appealed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the orders under section 25(2). However, the court referred to an amendment in section 25 by the Finance Act, 1988, which clarified that the Commissioner's power extends to matters not considered in appeal. Citing relevant judgments, the court held that the theory of merger did not apply in this case due to the retrospective effect of the amendment, granting the Commissioner jurisdiction to revise unaddressed aspects of the assessment orders.

Issue 2: Validity of rule 2B(2) under the Wealth-tax Act:

The petitioner contested the validity of rule 2B(2), arguing it contradicted standard accounting practices and violated constitutional principles. Rule 2B(2) specified that if an asset's market value exceeded its book value by more than 20%, the market value should be considered for assessment. The court analyzed the charging section and net wealth definition under the Wealth-tax Act, emphasizing the requirement to estimate asset values based on market prices. It explained that rule 2B(2) aligned with the Act's objective to tax market values, not book values. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court emphasized that statutory provisions, not accounting practices, determined tax liabilities. It concluded that rule 2B(2) was valid, dismissing the writ petitions challenging its legality.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed both writ petitions, affirming the Commissioner's jurisdiction to revise unaddressed aspects of assessment orders and upholding the validity of rule 2B(2) under the Wealth-tax Act. The court's detailed analysis highlighted the legislative intent behind the provisions and emphasized the primacy of statutory rules in determining tax liabilities over accounting practices.