1985 (12) TMI 84 - AT - Wealth-tax

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Alleged mistakes in the Tribunal's order.
3. Legality of the Wealth Tax Officer's (WTO) order.
4. Professional conduct of the chartered accountant.
5. Applicability of limitation provisions to invalid orders.
6. Admissibility and treatment of affidavits and evidence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The assessee filed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 22-11-1982 for the assessment year 1969-70, which was served on 12-12-1982. The appeal to the Tribunal was filed on 29-2-1984, with a delay of one year and 19 days. The delay was attributed to ignorance of procedure and reliance on incorrect advice from the chartered accountant. The Tribunal initially dismissed the appeal as barred by time. The assessee's counsel argued that the delay should be condoned due to sufficient reasons, including the illegality of the WTO's order and the professional advice received.

2. Alleged Mistakes in the Tribunal's Order:
The assessee's counsel pointed out three major mistakes in the Tribunal's order:
- The Tribunal did not consider the affidavits provided by the assessee and the chartered accountant.
- The Tribunal made adverse remarks about the chartered accountant without giving him an opportunity to defend himself.
- The Tribunal did not properly consider relevant High Court and Supreme Court decisions supporting the assessee's case.

3. Legality of the WTO's Order:
The WTO included certain cash credits in the net wealth for the assessment year 1969-70, which were later found to pertain to an earlier year. The Tribunal and the Settlement Commission had set aside the additions due to non-compliance with natural justice principles. The assessee argued that the WTO's order was illegal and void, thus rendering the limitation provisions inapplicable.

4. Professional Conduct of the Chartered Accountant:
The Tribunal's adverse remarks about the chartered accountant's conduct were challenged. The assessee's counsel argued that the chartered accountant acted in good faith and that the Tribunal's remarks could harm his professional career. The Tribunal's belief that there could be a revision petition from the Commissioner (Appeals) to the Commissioner (Administration) was also questioned.

5. Applicability of Limitation Provisions to Invalid Orders:
The assessee's counsel cited several Supreme Court decisions indicating that limitation provisions do not apply to invalid orders. The Tribunal was accused of not considering these decisions properly. The counsel argued that the WTO's order was invalid due to non-compliance with appellate authority directions and unconstitutional inclusion of assets.

6. Admissibility and Treatment of Affidavits and Evidence:
The Tribunal did not consider all the evidence and affidavits presented by the assessee. The Tribunal's failure to cross-examine the chartered accountant and the assessee before rejecting their affidavits was highlighted. The Supreme Court's decision in Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT was cited, which states that affidavits cannot be dismissed without cross-examination.

Separate Judgments:
Majority View (Dr. V. Balasubramanian and T. D. Sugla):
The delay should be condoned, and the appeal admitted. The Tribunal's order contained mistakes that required rectification. The adverse remarks about the chartered accountant were uncalled for and should be expunged. The Tribunal's assumption of two alternative remedies was incorrect, and the affidavits provided sufficient material for condonation of the delay.

Dissenting View (Y. R. Meena):
Condoning the delay would amount to a review of the Tribunal's order, which is not permissible. The Tribunal had already considered the arguments and evidence, and there was no apparent mistake that required rectification. The miscellaneous applications were dismissed.

Conclusion:
The majority view prevailed, and the delay was condoned. The appeal was admitted, and the grounds of appeal on merits would be considered in due course. The adverse remarks about the chartered accountant were to be expunged, and the Tribunal's order was found to contain mistakes that required rectification.

← Previous Next →