9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o have a second opportunity in terms of sub-section (5) of section 16 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and on that ground setting aside the orders of the authorities below and restoring the cases to the WTO to reframe the assessments ?" By its judgment dated 4-3-1980 reported in CWT v. Gurdial Singh [1980] 123 ITR 483 (Delhi) the High Court has answered the question in the negative and against the assessee. The High Court has also further held that the Tribunal should have proceeded to consider whether the assessments under section 16(5) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (' the Act ') were supported by the materials on record or not. As directed by the High Court, the hearing was fixed for going into the propriety and fairness of the estimates comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one failing under section 33(4). Therefore, all the powers of the Tribunal that could have been exercised by it at the time of the original hearing of the appeal could also be exercised while disposing of the appeal after the decision of the High Court. He then referred to the judgment in CWT v. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. [1970] 75 ITR 196 (SC) at page 201, wherein an extract has been given from the judgment of the Bombay High Court in ITAT v. S.C. Cambatta Co. Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 118, 120 and then it has been observed by the Supreme Court that the said passage was quoted with approval in Esthuri Aswathiah v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 478. In the Bombay High Court, referred to above, which has been approved by the Supreme Court, it has been held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds, the appeal before it is not finally disposed of, and it is only when the High Court or the Supreme Court decides the questions that have been referred, the Tribunal reconsiders the matter and decides it and thus finally disposes of the appeal . . . ." The learned departmental representative resisted the application for withdrawal of the appeals and submitted that the assessee should not be allowed to withdraw the appeals at this stage. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We do not dispute the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments cited on behalf of the assessee. But we do not accept the assessee's submission for withdrawing the appeals under section 22M(2) at this stage. The assessee could have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
