9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the car, has not paid the full consideration and is not in possession of the movable property. Even the valuation of the car to the extent of Rs. 131 lakhs is admitted. The order was passed by the assessing authority after affording opportunity to the appellant and applying its mind to the documents placed on record including the order of the High Court dated January 19, 1995, which admittedly has attained finality between the parties during the pendency of the suit – Appeal dismissed - - - - - Dated:- 3-2-2005 - Judge(s) : SWATANTER KUMAR., MADAN B. LOKUR JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by Swatanter Kumar J.-The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated May 7, 2004, dismissed the appeals preferred by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alth of the assessee for the relevant assessment years. Against this order appeal was filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) who by a detailed order and after taking note of the facts and directions contained in the judgment of the High Court dated January 19, 1995, passed in Suit No. 1477/94 sustained the order of the assessing authority. The assessing authority as well as the appellate authority after noticing the facts of the suit in detail came to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties did not relate to the ownership of the car but merely related to the balance payment of Rs. 69 lakhs as according to Shri Bagla the value of the car was Rs. 2 crores while the assessee had only paid him Rs. 131 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale of the imported car. In pursuance of the sale, delivery has been handed over by the seller to the assessee-company and the car has been got insured by the assessee-company and is being used for its business purpose. We are inclined to concur with the finding of the learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) that the dispute pending before the hon'ble Delhi High Court is not regarding the ownership of the car, the dispute is only with regard to the fact whether, consideration has been fully paid by the assessee or not. Such a dispute has no relevance whatsoever in so far as the ownership of the car vesting with the assessee is concerned. For the aforesaid reasons, we would accordingly dismiss the common ground involved in these appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erit. Thus, ground No. 4 for the assessment year 1999-2000 is restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 12. In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1998-99 are dismissed whereas appeal for the assessment year 1999-2000 is partly allowed as above." Learned counsel appearing for the assessee argued that the car does not belong to the assessee and as such could not be treated as a component or an asset of net wealth of the assessee. The orders passed by the wealth-tax authorities under the provisions of the Act thus suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record. Further it is contended that the following substantial questions of law arise in the present case: "1. Whether, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case are hardly of any dispute. The petitioner in the suit pending before the High Court and even before the authorities concerned has claimed the ownership of the car in question. The dispute primarily relates to the valuation of the car, i.e., the claim of Rs. 69 lakhs by Shri Bagla the plaintiff in the present suit against the assessee defendant. In fact, even the value of the car has admittedly been shown as Rs. 131 lakhs. Once the assessee himself claimed to be the owner of the car, the possession of which is admitted, in fact, the assessee would be estopped from taking a plea to the contrary. The assessee can also not be permitted to take shelter under the provisions of the Act to evade payment of wealth-tax. A Division Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law. In the present case as already noticed it is clear from the undisputed facts that the car is in the possession of the assessee who has already, according to his own case, paid the entire sale consideration. The documents have been executed, however the vehicle has not been registered in the name of the assessee under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The view taken by the Tribunal, in any case, is not contrary to the spirit of the Act. On a plain reading of section 2(e) and 2(ea) read with section 3 of the Act which is the charging section, we are of the view that the conclusions of the Tribunal do not suffer from patent error of law. Its approach cannot be said to be perverse even upon appreciation of documentary evidence p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
