1984 (1) TMI 118 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Request for reference to High Court on cancellation of reassessment order by Tribunal.

Analysis:
The Central Wealth Tax (CWT) Commissioner filed an application under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax (WT) Act, 1957, seeking the Tribunal to refer a specific question to the High Court for its opinion. The question pertained to the Tribunal's decision in canceling a reassessment order made by the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) and reverting to the provisions of section 17 of the WT Act. The Tribunal, however, declined the request for reference, stating that the question did not warrant a reference.

The assessment year in question was 1972-73, where the original wealth tax assessment was conducted in April 1973. Subsequently, the WTO, based on a complaint, revalued the property as of March 31, 1974, and concluded that the initial valuation was higher, leading to proceedings under section 17. The Assistant Commissioner (AAC) initially ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the WTO had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. This decision was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal, which then remanded the matter back to the AAC due to the involvement of disputes from previous assessment years.

After rehearing the case, the AAC dismissed the assessee's appeal for the 1972-73 assessment year. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the contentions of both parties, found in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the valuation issue had already been included in the original assessment and could not be revisited solely based on a subsequent valuation report.

Despite the Tribunal's decision based on factual findings, the departmental representative pressed for a reference, citing various case laws. However, the Tribunal maintained that the issue at hand was factual and did not raise any legal questions warranting a reference. The Tribunal also highlighted the distinction in facts between the cited cases and the present matter, ultimately rejecting the request for reference.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the reference application, emphasizing that the finding was primarily factual, and no question of law arose from the case. The Tribunal's decision was based on established facts and legal principles, leading to the rejection of the Commissioner's request for reference to the High Court.