9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal in passing orders under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act for specific assessment years. 2. Scope of factual verification by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act. Analysis: The judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court dealt with the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal and the Wealth-tax Officer under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The case involved the rectification of wealth-tax assessments made for the respondent, who owned agricultural lands in Kukatpally village. Initially, no additional wealth-tax was levied on these lands as they were deemed to be beyond 8 kms from the municipal limits of Hyderabad city. However, a report submitted later suggested otherwise, leading to the assessing authority seeking rectification under section 35(1) of the Act. The respondent contested this, providing evidence to support their claim. The assessing authority proceeded with rectification, which was upheld by the appellate authority, prompting the matter to be brought before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The key question revolved around whether the Inspector's report, obtained after the assessment, could be considered part of the "record" for the purpose of rectification under section 35. The Revenue argued that the term "record" could include post-assessment findings, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, the High Court disagreed, emphasizing that the record should consist of evidence existing at the time of assessment. The court referenced previous judgments to support this interpretation, highlighting that errors identified post-assessment do not fall within the scope of rectifiable mistakes under section 35. Drawing from the Supreme Court's stance in similar cases, the High Court reiterated that for rectification purposes, the evidence considered should pertain to the assessment period and not subsequent inquiries. The court concurred with the Karnataka High Court's position that only errors apparent from the case records, not external sources, warrant rectification under section 35. Consequently, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding the orders under section 35 for the mentioned assessment years as without jurisdiction. The judgment clarified that factual verifications by the Wealth-tax Officer should be based on evidence existing at the time of assessment, excluding post-assessment discoveries. In conclusion, the High Court's decision underscored the importance of limiting rectification under section 35 to errors evident from the records at the time of assessment, rejecting the inclusion of post-assessment findings. The judgment favored the assessee, emphasizing the need for adherence to the statutory provisions governing rectification procedures under the Wealth-tax Act.
|
