9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Rectification of Tribunal orders based on subsequent Supreme Court decision. Analysis: The case involved applications under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act seeking rectification of orders passed by the Tribunal based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision overruling a previous High Court decision. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal was duty-bound to rectify its earlier decision in light of the Supreme Court ruling, which was retrospective in operation. The assessees opposed the applications, arguing that finality of Tribunal orders should be maintained unless challenged through the proper legal process. The Tribunal considered the arguments and various legal precedents cited by both parties. The Tribunal rejected the assessees' argument that finality of orders could not be disturbed without filing reference applications, citing legal provisions under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act allowing rectification of mistakes apparent from the record within a specified period. The Tribunal distinguished cases cited by the assessees, emphasizing the need for rectification when a mistake is evident, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court. The Tribunal also discussed the relevance of the decision in the case of R.K. Sawhney and the principles of finality in appellate orders. The Tribunal referred to decisions supporting the Revenue's position, particularly highlighting the case of Shashi Raj Kapoor where rectification was accepted following a Supreme Court decision contrary to the Tribunal's initial ruling. Citing the Kil Kotagiri Tea & Coffee Estates Co. Ltd. case, the Tribunal emphasized that an order based on an incorrect interpretation of the law, subsequently corrected by a judicial pronouncement, constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's argument that the Supreme Court decision had retrospective operation, justifying the rectification of the Tribunal's orders. In conclusion, the Tribunal accepted the Revenue's applications, finding a mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's orders in light of the Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal reversed the orders passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) and restored the Wealth-tax Officer's valuation of shares in accordance with the relevant rule. The revenue's appeals were allowed, emphasizing the retrospective effect of the Supreme Court decision on the Tribunal's orders.
|
