9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment made in the name of the deceased. 2. Locus standi of the executrix to file an appeal. 3. Procedural irregularities in the assessment process. 4. Rectification of mistakes under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Assessment Made in the Name of the Deceased The primary issue was whether the assessment made in the name of the deceased, Gopalji Jagmal, was valid. The executrix, Smt. Dhangauri Gopalji, argued that the assessment was null and void as it was made in the name of a dead person. The Tribunal noted that section 19(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, allows the Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) to make an assessment of the net wealth of a deceased person and determine the wealth-tax payable by the deceased, provided notice is issued to the executor. In this case, although the executrix was involved in the proceedings through a chartered accountant, no formal notice was issued to her, and the assessment order mentioned the deceased as the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that these were procedural irregularities and not jurisdictional defects. Therefore, the assessment was not void ab initio but required correction by setting aside the assessment and directing the WTO to issue a fresh notice to the executrix and complete the assessment accordingly. 2. Locus Standi of the Executrix to File an Appeal The department raised an additional ground questioning the locus standi of the executrix to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), arguing that only the legal heir could do so. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that when a deceased has appointed an executrix through a will, she is competent to file an appeal. There was no question of any other legal heir filing the appeal against the assessment order. 3. Procedural Irregularities in the Assessment Process The Tribunal addressed the procedural irregularities, noting that the essential requirement under section 19(2) was for the executrix to be given an opportunity to produce evidence and be heard. Although no formal notice was issued to the executrix, she participated in the proceedings through her chartered accountant. The Tribunal considered this a procedural irregularity rather than a jurisdictional defect. It was decided that the assessment should not be annulled but set aside, with directions to the WTO to issue a fresh notice to the executrix and complete the assessment in accordance with the law. 4. Rectification of Mistakes Under Section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act The WTO had issued an order under section 35 to rectify a mistake apparent from the record by levying additional wealth-tax on urban immovable property. The executrix appealed against this order, and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal. The department's appeal against this decision was dismissed as infructuous since the assessment itself was set aside based on the executrix's cross-objection. Conclusion The Tribunal set aside the assessment made in the name of the deceased and directed the WTO to issue a fresh notice to the executrix and complete the assessment in accordance with the law. The appeals filed by the department were dismissed as infructuous, and the cross-objections filed by the executrix were allowed.
|
