1983 (11) TMI 20 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the legality of the order dated February 28, 1979, passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax.
2. Inclusion of specific sums in the assets of M/s. Ramkumar Jalan while computing the petitioner's share.
3. Rejection of contentions by the AAC and subsequent appeal under s. 25(1) of the W.T. Act.
4. Disallowance of interest amount in the hands of Narayan Hosiery Limited and its impact on the wealth computation.
5. Allegation of the Commissioner not applying his own mind and blindly following the Tribunal's order.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the legality of the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Central-I, Bombay, under s. 25(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957. The dispute arose from the inclusion of specific sums in the assets of M/s. Ramkumar Jalan while computing the petitioner's share in the firm. The petitioner, a partner in the firm, contested the inclusion of Rs. 26,39,427 and interest amounts, which were also subject to appeals before the AAC. The AAC partially allowed the appeals but upheld the inclusion of the contested sums, following the precedent set by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in a similar case.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under s. 25(1) of the W.T. Act before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, seeking the deletion of the contested sums for computing her share in the firm. However, the Commissioner rejected the application, leading to the present challenge. The petitioner argued that the inclusion of certain amounts in her wealth was unjustified, emphasizing discrepancies in the treatment of interest amounts related to Narayan Hosiery Limited. The Commissioner, in turn, defended the decision by highlighting the consistency with the Tribunal's rulings in similar cases.

The petitioner further alleged that the Commissioner failed to independently assess the contentions presented, merely echoing the Tribunal's decision. However, the Court dismissed these arguments, emphasizing its limited role in reviewing administrative orders. The Court held that the Commissioner's decision, being non-appealable under the law, should not be disturbed through writ jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Court ruled against the petitioner, upholding the Commissioner's order and dismissing the petition with costs.