9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Legality of ITO's order refusing to rectify original assessment order under WT Act, entitlement to deduction under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of WT Act, duty of WTO to allow deductions, relevance of claim for deduction in return, judicial application of mind by WTO, appellate authority's direction to allow deduction, material required to support claim for relief, maintainability of claim for rectification, deprivation of legitimate rights due to inadvertence, exercise of powers under s. 25 of WT Act by CWT. Analysis: The dispute in the appeals revolves around the legality of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) refusing to rectify the original assessment order under the Wealth Tax (WT) Act. The assessee did not claim any deduction under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act in the returns filed initially. Consequently, the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) computed the total wealth of the assessee without allowing the deduction. However, the assessee later filed a petition claiming relief under s. 5(1)(xxxii) in respect of capital in a trading company. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) observed that the assessee was entitled to the deduction, and it was the duty of the WTO to allow all deductions, even if not claimed in the return. On appeal, the Revenue contended that there was no material before the WTO to support the deduction claim, and reliance was placed on legal precedents to argue against allowing the deduction. The assessee argued that the same WTO was aware of the capital employed in the trading company and should have granted the relief. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, held that the original order of the WTO did not suffer from any apparent mistake and set aside the AAC's decision to rectify the order. However, recognizing the hardship faced by the assessee due to inadvertence, the Tribunal suggested that the Chief Wealth Tax Officer (CWT) should exercise powers under s. 25 of the WT Act to grant necessary relief to the assessee. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, emphasizing the need to address the assessee's legitimate rights and potential deprivation due to inadvertence. The decision highlights the importance of judicially applying the law while also considering the equitable relief that may be warranted in certain cases.
|
