9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act. 2. Inclusion of professional remuneration in the net wealth. 3. Validity of the revisionary order dated 21-3-1991. 4. Consideration of evidence and procedural fairness. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act: The primary objection raised by the assessee was that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax had no right to assume jurisdiction under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, arguing that the revisions are barred by limitation. The Tribunal clarified that the original assessments dated 28-2-1984 and 30-3-1985 were not taken up in revision; instead, the fresh assessment orders dated 31-3-1989 were the subject of revision. The Tribunal noted that the law on the subject underwent a thorough change after 1-6-1988 with the insertion of Explanation (c) to section 25(2), which allowed the Commissioner to revise matters not considered and decided in the appeal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner had full competence to exercise his revisionary jurisdiction under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act. 2. Inclusion of Professional Remuneration in the Net Wealth: The Revenue contended that the assessee received a total remuneration of Rs. 6,60,000 for acting in the film 'Superman', which was not disclosed in the wealth-tax returns for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax directed the inclusion of Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 6,60,000 in the net wealth for the respective assessment years. The Tribunal found that the evidence against the assessee, including statements from the film producer and materials seized during a search, indicated that the amounts were received but were not declared. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the evidence should have been put to the assessee for explanation before making any additions. 3. Validity of the Revisionary Order Dated 21-3-1991: The Tribunal examined whether the revisionary order dated 21-3-1991 was valid under law. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax had held that the assessments dated 31-3-1989 were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and thus, the initiation of revisionary proceedings was within the statutory time limit. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the revisionary order, noting that the Commissioner was vested with jurisdiction under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, and the revisionary order was within the permissible time frame. 4. Consideration of Evidence and Procedural Fairness: The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner of Wealth-tax for taking certain evidence as conclusive against the assessee without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to make his submissions. The Tribunal emphasized the need for procedural fairness, stating that all evidence gathered against the assessee should be put to him, and his explanation should be obtained before making any additions. The Tribunal directed the Wealth-tax Officer to conduct further enquiry into the question of payment of 'on money' to the assessee for his role in 'Superman' and to determine the quantum of addition, if any, after giving due opportunity to the assessee to make his submissions. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, remanding the matter back to the Commissioner of Wealth-tax with directions to make further enquiry and to redetermine the quantum of wealth to be added in the hands of the assessee for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, in accordance with law and after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
|
