9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtial partition but failure to fathom that on what basis the tribunal has come to such a conclusion and on what ground it has reversed the finding of the CWT(A). It is trite law that the tribunal is the highest fact finding authority and, therefore, it has to discharge its obligation while it reverses a factual order more so, when the assessee had suffered. Set aside the order passed by the tribunal and direct remit to it for proper adjudication as per law. - I.T.A. No.45/2000 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2013 - Krishn Kumar Lahoti And M. A. Siddiqui,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Sandesh Jain, Advocate. For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate ORDER This appeal was admitted on 31.10.2001 on the following substantial que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal preferred under Section 27-A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 [for brevity 'the Act'] was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the appellant's claim of complete partition under Section 20 of the Wealth Tax Act?" 2. The essential facts which need to be exposited for appreciating the grounds urged in the appeal are that the petitioner was assessed to Wealth Tax by the Assistant Commissioner, Wealth Tax under Section 17 of the Act and the said authority rejected the stand of the assessee-petitioner that there has been complete partition of the HUF and hence, there could be no liability of Wealth Tax. Be it noted, it was pleaded bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns contained in Sec. 20A of the W.T. Act, we are of the opinion that family is liable to be assessed under the W.T. Act if no such partial partition has taken place. We, therefore, hereby set aside the impugned order of ld. CWT(A) and restore the order of the AO u/ s 20 dated 27-3-96. The appeal of the Revenue is accordingly allowed." 5. Questioning the correctness of the aforesaid order it is submitted by Mr. H.S. Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel being assisted by Mr. Oswal for the assessee, appellant that the tribunal being the final fact finding authority could not have dealt with the matter in a mechanical and superficial manner as it has done. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the tribunal should have apprised itse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee had suffered. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the order passed by the tribunal on 18-02-2000, Annexure A/8, and direct remit to it for proper adjudication as per law. Needless to emphasize when this Court has directed remit of the case, as there has been no discussion by the tribunal with regard to factual matrix, there has been no expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs." The present dispute relates to subsequent assessment years, while against the same order, another Misc. W.T.A. No.46/2000 has been decided by the Division Bench on 13.03.2008, as quoted herein above. As the controversy is similar, and against the same Mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
