9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Consolidated reference application for multiple assessment years under Wealth-tax Act - Rejection of reference application by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on procedural grounds Analysis: The case involved multiple petitions arising from a common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment of wealth-tax for the years 1969-70 to 1977-78. The Wealth-tax Officer had included the value of life interest and reversion to corpus in two trusts in the assessment orders, leading to appeals by the taxpayer. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeals, prompting the Wealth-tax Officer to appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the previous decision. Subsequently, a consolidated reference application was filed under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, proposing a common question of law. However, the reference application was rejected by the Tribunal on the basis that separate applications should have been filed for each wealth-tax appeal. The petitioner argued that the consolidated application was filed in accordance with Rule 7 under the Wealth-tax Act, which does not explicitly require separate applications for different assessment years when a common question of law arises. The petitioner cited precedents and legal texts to support the contention that a single reference application is permissible in cases involving common issues between the same parties. The respondent failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by the consolidated application and did not dispute the absence of specific rules mandating separate applications in such scenarios. The Court held that the Tribunal's rejection of the consolidated reference application on procedural grounds was unjustified and not in line with principles of natural justice. Even if a single application was deemed improper for all nine cases, it should have been accepted for at least one assessment year where a common question of law existed. The Court concluded that the rejection of the reference application was unfounded and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the application on its merits. Consequently, the petitions were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, with costs not awarded.
|
