1992 (4) TMI 11 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not permitting the assessee to raise additional grounds regarding the valuation of interests in the R. D. Birla Trust and Ashok Kumar Birla Trust.
2. Jurisdiction and discretion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal in allowing additional grounds of appeal.

Summary:

Issue 1: Tribunal's Justification in Not Permitting Additional Grounds
For the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64, and 1964-65, the applicant included the total value of assets from the R. D. Birla Trust and Ashok Kumar Birla Trust in his net wealth instead of the capitalised value of his interest on an actuarial basis. The Wealth-tax Officer accepted this valuation. The applicant did not initially raise the question of valuation mode in his appeals but sought to introduce it later before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected this, stating that the additional grounds did not arise from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order and required further evidence, which was not on record.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction and Discretion of Appellate Authorities
The Division Bench referred questions to the Full Bench due to conflicting authorities on whether the Tribunal could allow additional grounds not raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Full Bench, referencing sections 23 and 24 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and the Supreme Court's decision in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT, held that appellate authorities have jurisdiction to permit additional grounds if they arise from the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal has the discretion to allow or disallow such grounds, which must be exercised based on relevant considerations.

Conclusion:
The Full Bench concluded that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to permit additional grounds even if they did not arise from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order. However, the Tribunal's discretion in this matter is not under question. The questions for the assessment year 1962-63 and the second question for the years 1963-64 and 1964-65 were answered in the negative, favoring the assessee. The Tribunal was directed to dispose of the case in conformity with this judgment. No order as to costs was made.