9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Application under section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act for directing the Tribunal to state a case and refer the question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order dated June 24, 1977. Analysis: The judgment pertains to two applications under section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, seeking direction for the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer a question of law from its order dated June 24, 1977. The Wealth-tax Officer initially did not include all jewelry and ornaments in the total wealth of the assessee based on a Supreme Court decision. However, an amendment to section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act made jewelry and ornaments taxable from April 1, 1963. The Wealth-tax Officer revised the assessment after issuing a notice to the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner annulled the order, leading to appeals by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, stating that the original exemption did not reveal any rectifiable mistake. The petitioner sought a reference to the High Court on this issue. The High Court analyzed the legal precedent and held that for a mistake to be rectified under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, it must be glaringly obvious and not a debatable point of law. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in T S. Balaram's case and other relevant judgments, the court emphasized that the mistake must be self-evident and incapable of debate. The court cited cases where rectification was denied due to the debatable nature of the issue, reinforcing the principle that rectifiable mistakes must be apparent on the record without extensive reasoning or differing opinions. Furthermore, the court highlighted a case involving the retrospectivity of an amendment, where the complexity and debatability of the issue precluded it from being a rectifiable mistake. Drawing from its own precedent in a case related to the Income-tax Act, the court reiterated that rectification requires a clear and obvious mistake on the record. Ultimately, the High Court concluded that, based on legal principles and precedents, no rectifiable mistake was evident in the original assessment. Therefore, the court dismissed the petitions and held the parties responsible for costs. In summary, the judgment delves into the criteria for rectifiable mistakes under the Wealth-tax Act, emphasizing the need for errors to be glaringly apparent without room for debate. Through a detailed analysis of legal precedents and principles, the High Court concluded that the original assessment did not exhibit any rectifiable mistakes, thereby rejecting the applications seeking a reference to the Tribunal on the question of law.
|
