1971 (4) TMI 14 - HC - Wealth-tax

Whether,the Tribunal was competent to recall its order referring the valuation to a valuer and decide the dispute about valuation itself - order which is not deciding any issue between the parties is not a final decision so tribunal is competent to recall its order

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to recall its order dated April 27, 1961 under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where the Tribunal recalled its order dated April 27, 1961, which had referred the valuation of certain properties to valuers. The issue raised was whether the Tribunal had the competence to recall its order. The Appellate Tribunal had initially referred the valuation matter to valuers under section 24(6) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The assessee objected to this and requested the Tribunal to value the properties itself. The Tribunal recalled its order, valued the properties, and disposed of the appeals. The revenue contended that the Tribunal had no power to review its order once passed. However, the court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act, specifically section 24(6), which did not provide for a situation where one party refuses to appoint a valuer. The court held that in such cases, the order referring the matter to valuers becomes infructuous, allowing the Tribunal to proceed to decide the case. The court emphasized that the order referring a dispute to valuers does not constitute a final decision affecting the parties' rights, and thus, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to recall its order.

The court further discussed the provisions of section 24(10), which state that any order passed by the Tribunal on appeal shall be final, except as provided in section 27. It clarified that this finality does not extend to interim orders made by the Tribunal. Additionally, the court highlighted that section 24(5) grants wide powers to the Tribunal to make suitable orders. Consequently, the court concluded that the Tribunal was within its jurisdiction to recall the order dated April 27, 1961, and proceed to decide the valuation dispute raised in the appeal itself. Ultimately, the court answered the question referred in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, with no costs awarded due to the absence of representation from the assessee.