9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 439 - HC - Wealth-taxRevision petition u/s 25 of the Wealth Tax Act - Commissioner, Wealth Tax, Udaipur held that the revisions u/s 25 of the Wealth Tax Act against the intimation issued under Section 16(1) of the Act of 1957 is not an order, and therefore, the revision petitions under Section 25 of the Act of 1957 were not maintainable - HELD THAT - As intimation order was passed under Section 16(1), the appeal lay under Sections 23 23A of the Act of 1957 and the revisionary powers were specified under Section 25 of the Act of 1957. Such powers were in existence and the authority passing the order of appeal was subordinate to the revisionary authority, and therefore, it was open for such authority as it deemed it appropriate to adjudicate the matter, strictly in accordance with law. Commissioner has not examined the matter on merits and the analogy in the Income Tax Act whereby it has been held by the Hon ble Bombay High Court that the process of taking a decision in the matter, sending the intimation, being a decision in itself in the nature of the order passed by the concerned authority gives sufficient ambit within the four corners of law under the Act of 1957 to invoke the jurisdiction of revision under Section 25 of the Act of 1957. In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in Anderson Marine 2003 (12) TMI 47 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and while taking into consideration the observations made by the learned Single Judge and not refuted by the respondent, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the appeals, and thus, the special appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Issues involved:
The issue involved in this case was the maintainability of revision petitions under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, challenging the order of the Commissioner, Wealth Tax, Udaipur rejecting the revision petition under Section 25 for multiple Assessment Years. Summary: Issue 1: Maintainability of Revision Petitions under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act The respondent-petitioner filed writ petitions challenging the order of the Commissioner, Wealth Tax, Udaipur rejecting the revision petition under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act for various Assessment Years. The Commissioner held that revisions under Section 25 against the intimation issued under Section 16(1) of the Act were not maintainable. The main issue before the court was to determine the maintainability of such revision petitions. The respondent's counsel cited a similar provision in the Income Tax Act, referring to a case decided by the Bombay High Court. The court examined the provisions of Section 143 of the Income Tax Act and concluded that the intimation sent by the Assessing Officer should be understood as having the force of an order on self-assessment. The court emphasized that the intimation under Section 143(1) is in the nature of an order passed under the Act, allowing for jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The court also noted that the Bombay High Court's decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, reinforcing the validity of considering intimation as an order. The court found that the intimation order was passed under Section 16(1), and the revisionary powers under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act were applicable. The court held that the analogy from the Income Tax Act supported the view that sending the intimation was a decision in itself, akin to passing an order. Therefore, the revisionary authority had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter under the Act of 1957. Based on the judgment of the Bombay High Court and considering the arguments presented, the court dismissed the special appeals, finding no reason to interfere. In conclusion, the court upheld the maintainability of revision petitions under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act, following the interpretation of the Income Tax Act and the precedent set by the Bombay High Court.
|
