9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts which are relevant for determination of this issue. 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and from the following tabulated data the date of filing the original return, the late of assessment and the net wealth assessed can be seen placed in juxtaposition : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. Year of Date of Net wealth Net wealth Date of No. assessment original returned assessed assessment &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -------- The statistical data noted supra shows that the Wealth-tax Officer completed the assessments for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-1975 on31-3-1979and the assessment for the last year, i.e., 1975-76 was completed by him on29-3-1980. These assessments were challenged in appeal before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals). The learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) made a consolidated order for the appeals relating to assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75 on25-2-1981. He disposed of the appeal relating to the assessment year 1975-76 vide his order dated30th March, 1981. The above two orders were received by the Commissioner on9-3-1981and6-4-1981respectively. By these orders the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) while se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) dated25-2-1981and31-3-1981respectively received on9-3-1981and6-4-1981had been challenged in appeal before the Tribunal. It was, therefore, pointed out to him that insofar as limitation provided under section 17A (3) of the Wealth-tax Act is concerned, the matter was sub judice. It was further contended that the order of the Tribunal was passed on9-6-1982for all the years under appeal and as such, the time available for completion of the impugned assessments was up to31-3-1987. Since the impugned assessments had been completed on25-3-1987they were made within the limitation provided under the statute. 4. The learned Commissioner, however, on examination of the provisions of section 17A (3) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions regarding limitation of assessments under the Wealth-tax Act are abundantly clear and provide for computation of the period of limitation from the orders of various appellate authorities and the period of limitations is to be reckoned with respect to each appellate order because there is no provision indicating that when an appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) the limitation ceases to run. He relied upon the following authorities to support his contentions : 1. Gulabchand Motilal v. CIT [1987] 34 Taxman 456 (MP); 2. Banarsidas Bhanot & Sons v. CIT [1981] 129 ITR 488 (MP); 3. Prem Nath Mayor v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 588 (Punj. & Har.); and 4. M. K. Srikanta Setty v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 588 (Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed upon its provisions by the Revenue so as t claim that limitation has to be reckoned from the order of the Tribunal or from the orders of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) which were challenged in appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue. Sub-section (3) of section 17A, reads as under : "17A. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), an order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order passed on or after the 1st day of April, 1975, under section 23, section 24 or section 25, setting aside or cancelling an assessment, may be made at any time before the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order under section 23 or section 24 is received by the Commissioner or, as the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e till the order is made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction whatsoever. The limitation has been provided by the Legislature relating to each of the orders by the appellate authorities and sections 23 and 24 have been indicated in a disjunctive manner to make it clear that limitation relates to each order under each section independent of the other. To our mind, this is clear from a plain reading of the section and no two reasonable views on this aspect are conceivable. We are not to doubt the wisdom of the Legislature and have to see what is clearly and plainly said. 10. In the light of what we have observed above, we have to find out whether the impugned orders made by the Wealth-tax Officer were within the Limitatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
