9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correct in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) quashing the assessment framed by the Wealth-tax Officer following the decision of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of P. C. Oswal v. S. P. Mehta, WTO [1983] 142 ITR 574 ?" The material facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The assessee filed his return of net wealth on February 25, 1978, declaring his net wealth at Rs. 1,26,000. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax made the assessment on March 30, 1982, and determined the net wealth of the assessee at Rs. 2,64,810. This he did by enhancing the value of immovable properties and disallowing the claim of the assessee that a plot of land, measuring 4 klm., owned by him, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's case [1983] 142 ITR 574 and held that the Wealth-tax Act, as originally enacted, was. covered by entry 86 of List I of the Constitution of India and its extension to the State of Jammu and Kashmir was perfectly constitutional. In the above case, the Supreme Court considered at length the question whether the Wealth-tax Act (minus agricultural land) related to entry 86 of List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule as contended by the Revenue or entry 97 of List III (Concurrent list) as contended by the assessee and held : "The language of entry 86 also clearly indicates that the tax is upon individuals and not directly upon the assets or upon their value. The wealth-tax is determined with reference to the capital value of the assets m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal is concerned, we are of the opinion that the question has not been framed properly. The question of law that arises out of the order of the Tribunal is whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the extension of the Wealth-tax Act to the State of Jammu and Kashmir was unconstitutional. The Tribunal followed the decision of this court, which was binding on it and held that it was unconstitutional. As the appeal against the judgment of this court was pending before the Supreme Court, the Revenue sought for a reference of the question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal to this court for opinion under section 27(1) of the Act. The question being a pure question of law and there being no decision of the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
