9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (11) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 30th of November, 1987 passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals)-II,New Delhi, in respect of assessment year 1982-83, the related assessment having been framed on 2nd of December, 1985 under section 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The valuation date as mentioned in the assessment order was31st March, 1982. 2. The first grievance is that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Shri H.S. Gulati, Advocate, very persistently reiterated the contention raised before the lower authorities and for the Revenue, Shri R.V. Ramanan, Deptt. Representative, with equal force supported the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) particularly in relation to question Nos. 1 and 2. 3. As far as the first issue is concerned, though in the original return, the assessee added R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to Rs. 1,40,800 and salary between22nd December, 1980to31st March, 1981amounted to Rs. 38,720. In the revised wealth-tax return filed for the valuation date 31st March, 1982, the assessee's claim was that it had received excess salary amounting to Rs. 90,250 and though for the financial year ending 31st March, 1982 the excess remuneration was of the order of Rs. 72,000 for the period up to 31-3- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corded by the Central Govt., but up to 1984 it was not given because of some pending dispute in the Supreme Court. On the above facts as also on the facts stated by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), we find no case for the assessee to escape assessment in relation to Rs. 90,270 which not only belonged to the assessee but he had full domain over the money utilisation. The assessee, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
