1985 (12) TMI 98 - AT - Wealth-tax

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the IAC of IT (Asst.) under the WT Act.
2. Legality of the CIT's order transferring jurisdiction.
3. Admissibility of additional grounds of appeal by the Revenue.
4. Competence of the CWT (A) to entertain appeals on jurisdictional grounds.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the IAC of IT (Asst.) under the WT Act:
The Revenue contended that the CIT (A) erred in annulling the assessments for the asst. yrs. 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75, arguing that the IAC of IT (Asst.) had jurisdiction under the WT Act by virtue of s. 125 (2) (a) of the IT Act, 1961. The CIT (A) had overlooked that the IAC, by becoming an assessing authority under s. 125, acquires exclusive jurisdiction under s. 8 of the WT Act, 1957. However, the Tribunal found that the WT Act and IT Act were two separate enactments, and the provisions of the IT Act were not fully imported into the WT Act. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CWT vs. B. Nathmal Vaid, which held that concurrent power under the WT Act had to be conferred on the IAC (Asst.) by a separate notification under s. 8AA of the WT Act. Therefore, the IAC of IT (Asst.) did not have jurisdiction under the WT Act in the case of the assessee.

2. Legality of the CIT's Order Transferring Jurisdiction:
The CIT's order dated 21st Dec., 1978, transferring jurisdiction to the IAC of IT (Asst.), Patiala, was challenged on the grounds that it was legally invalid. The CIT had neither recorded the reasons nor communicated the same to the assessee before passing the order, which was a statutory requirement as per the Supreme Court judgment in Ajantha Industries & Ors. vs. CBDT. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT (A) that the order under s. 127 r/w s. 125 (1) was bad in law for want of jurisdiction and annulled the assessments made by the IAC (Asst.) under the WT Act.

3. Admissibility of Additional Grounds of Appeal by the Revenue:
During the hearing, the Revenue raised additional grounds of appeal, which included the contention that the CIT (A) had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal on the question of jurisdiction. The Tribunal admitted the second additional ground, finding it went to the root of the problem. The Tribunal referred to Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd., and other relevant case law to conclude that additional grounds of appeal could be admitted if they were crucial for substantial justice.

4. Competence of the CWT (A) to Entertain Appeals on Jurisdictional Grounds:
The Tribunal examined whether the CWT (A) had jurisdiction to entertain appeals challenging the jurisdiction of the assessing authority. The Tribunal referred to s. 23 (1) (c) and s. 23 (1A) of the WT Act, which allow appeals against the assessment or penalty order. The Tribunal concluded that the CWT (A) had the jurisdiction to entertain the appeals by the assessee challenging the jurisdiction of the assessing officer under s. 23 (1A) (c) r/w s. 23 (1) (c) of the WT Act, 1957. The Tribunal relied on judicial pronouncements, including the case of CIT vs. Geeta Ram Kali Ram and others, which defined the scope of cl. (c) of s. 246 (a) of the IT Act, which is pari materia with s. 23 (1) (a), (b), and (c) of the WT Act.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals by the Revenue, upholding the CIT (A)'s order that the IAC of IT (Asst.) had no jurisdiction under the WT Act and that the CIT's order transferring jurisdiction was legally invalid. The Tribunal also confirmed that the CWT (A) had the competence to entertain appeals on jurisdictional grounds.

← Previous Next →