1973 (5) TMI 14 - HC - Wealth-tax

Appeal against best judgment assessment - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in disposing of an appeal against an assessment under section 16(5), the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should confine himself only to the materials on record at the time of assessment, i.e. the previous assessment order? - we must hold that the Tribunal was not right in holding that in disposing of an appeal against an assessment under section 16(5), the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should confine himself only to the materials on record. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the scope of Appellate Assistant Commissioner's authority in disposing of an appeal against an assessment under section 16(5) of the Wealth-tax Act.

Analysis:
The case involved a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, concerning the assessment year 1960-61. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the net wealth from Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs. 14,06,000 based on additional grounds filed by the assessee. However, both the assessee and the Wealth-tax Officer appealed to the Tribunal. The main issue was whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could consider materials other than those on record at the time of assessment under section 16(5) of the Wealth-tax Act. The Tribunal, relying on a previous decision, held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should only consider past assessments and estimated the net wealth at Rs. 16,00,000. The assessee then sought reference to the High Court on two questions, but the Tribunal only referred the first question, not the second.

The High Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, particularly section 23(4) and (5), which grant the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the authority to make further inquiries and admit additional evidence before disposing of an appeal. The court cited precedents where Appellate Assistant Commissioners were allowed to consider fresh evidence to ensure assessments were not arbitrary or capricious. The Tribunal's reliance on a particular case was deemed inappropriate as it did not preclude the Appellate Assistant Commissioner from considering new evidence. The court emphasized that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's authority to make further inquiries extended to the Tribunal as well. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to restrict the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to past assessments was deemed incorrect. The High Court answered the reference question in the negative, in favor of the assessee.

The judgment concluded with no order as to costs, and the concurring opinion of the other judge, agreeing with the analysis and decision of the primary judge.