9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness assets so as to levy additional wealth-tax, as it required fresh application of mind. " 2. The assessment was completed on 20th March, 1984. Thereafter, the assessee had moved an application dated 17th September, 1984 u/s 35 of the W.T. Act. It was submitted that the additional wealth-tax has been wrongly calculated on the following immovable properties which are commercial assets : (i) Shalint Cinetone, Kolhapur Rs. 5,35,400 (ii) Vikram Cold Storage, Jaipur Rs. 5,06,600 (iii) Vikram Potatoes Cold Storage, Dewas Rs. 2,78,800 (iv) M. B. Metal Pressing Engg. Works, Ujjain Rs.1,65,500 --------------------------- Total Rs. 14.86,300 ----------------------------- The AO accepted the submissions of the assessee and rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant the exemption and as such his action was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. He, therefore, directed the AO to pass a fresh order u /s 35 excluding only Vikram Potatoes Cold Storage, Dewas, building and M.B. Metal Pressing Engineering Works, Ujjain, building from additional wealth-tax as only these two buildings were business assets and the remaining buildings were non-business assets. The operative part of the Commissioner's order reads as under : " The order of rectification passed by the WTO u/s 35 accepting these properties to be business assets and excluding them from the wealth liable to additional wealth-tax is, therefore, considered erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not merely apparent from record and so it was not rectifiable. The CWT(A) accepted the submissions of the assessee. He held that to the extent the rectification was resorted to with reference to the two assets determined as non-business assets, namely, Shalini Cinetone, Kolhapur and Vikram Cold Storage, Jaipur, it could not be said that such recharacterisation could be covered under a rectificatory provision like section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act. It called for a fresh application of mind and so rectification was not possible. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The correctness of that order is being challenged in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned D.R. has submitted that the order of the CWT passed u/s 25(2) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order passed by the Commissioner has become final and is binding on the parties, we are of the opinion that in the garb of his appellate jurisdiction, the CWT(A) has made an attempt to correct the order passed u/s 25(2) and has thus exceeded his jurisdiction in the matter. It is well-settled that a wrong decision by a court having jurisdiction is as much binding between the parties as a right one and may be superseded only by appeal to higher Tribunals or other procedure like review which the law provides. If any authority is needed on the point, it can be found in State of West Bengal v. Henmantkumar AIR 1966 SC 1061. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the AO suffers from no infirmity and the CWT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
