9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment year 1971-72 and Wealthtax Reference Application No. 41 of 1990 is for the assessment year 1972-73 in the case of Roshanlal Kasliwal, partner of the same firm. It will, therefore, be clear that all the above wealth-tax reference applications, though for different years and arising out of different orders made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, are by one or the other of the partners of M/s. Gem Palace, M. 1. Road, Jaipur. It will, therefore, be clear that each of the assessees was also a partner of M/s. Mani Ram and Sons. Besides the above-named assessees, there was one more partner, Smt. Ratan Prabha. Original assessments in the case of the above-named assessees as well as Ratan Prabha were made tinder section 16 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"). In the aforesaid assessments, the assessees' declared version of the value of interest in the firm of M/s. Mani Rain and Sons, Jaipur, as the closing balance had come to be accepted. The Wealth-tax Officer, the assessing authority, noticing that the said firm owned a cinema known as Gem Cinema, Jaipur, the market value of which was substantially higher than the book value and further that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the part of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee as provided tinder section 23(3A) of the Wealth-tax Act. But, along with the two appeals of tile Revenue, the Tribunal failed to decide the cross-objections filed by L. K. Kasliwal and the cross-objections were taken up by the Tribunal later and, tinder its order dated March 25, 1988, the Tribunal was of the opinion that, as the appeals of the Revenue have been accepted and the case has been remitted to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the cross-objections should also be allowed and ordered that: "Thus, consistent with the order passed in appeals setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, these cross-objections are also allowed for statistical purpose and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is directed to examine the issue raised by the assessee in accordance with law after taking into account our observations made above." It maybe stated that, in tile cross-objections, the main ground which was raised on behalf of the assessee was that initiation of the proceedings under section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act was bad in law. Tile Revenue filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the four orders and each of the appeals was disposed of by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under his order dated April 9, 1987. The said Commissioner partly allowed the appeals but, so far as initiation of action under section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act is concerned, in respect of which grounds Nos. 1 and 2 as common grounds in all the appeals were raised, simply referred to the raising of the grounds and said that the appellant's objection regarding jurisdiction is without any basis. Having remanded the case, he directed the Wealth-tax Officer to work out the value of the assessee's interest in Gem Cinema in accordance with and on the basis of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, and to give relief to the assessee for the relevant years in question. The Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal and the Tribunal disposed of all the appeals by its order dated December 31, 1987, and the Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the matter for fresh orders in line with Ratan Prabha's case and other related cases. But the cross-objections f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cata are concerned, they have no application to the proceedings under the Income-tax Act or for that matter under the Wealth-tax Act, since each assessment is a separate and independent case and, therefore, any finding recorded in respect of one year will not be binding in the subsequent years. He further contends that each partner is a separate assessee and any finding recorded in respect of one partner cannot be binding in respect of another partner. In the aforesaid case, the Madras High Court was considering a similar question and taking into consideration the facts of that case, the court said (at page 462) : "Even assuming that this court on the earlier occasion had not given any finding with regard to the nature of the gift, whether it was real or sham, and merely went on to consider the question of law embedded in the question actually referred to this court, still we are of the opinion that no Tribunal of fact has any right or jurisdiction to come to a conclusion entirely contrary to the one reached by another Bench of the same Tribunal on the identical facts. It may be that the members who constituted the Tribunal and decided on the earlier occasion are different from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on under section 17(1)(a) were rejected by this Bench, the Tribunal said that the reopening of the proceedings was vaguely challenged and nothing in support of the cross-objection was stated by the assessee. It can, therefore, be said that the question whether action initiated under section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act in respect of the assessee was warranted or not is yet at large before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to whom the case has been remanded. In the case of CIT v. Grand Bazaar [1991] 187 ITR 471 (Mad), the court was considering a case where the Tribunal referred the matter to the Income-tax Officer for the novo consideration. The Madras High Court said (headnote): " . . . the effect of the order of the Tribunal was merely to set aside the matter and remit the same to the officer with the direction that, in the course of the de novo proceedings, it would be open to the officer to examine all the aspects including the applicability of section 68 of the Income-tax Act to the cash credits and no prejudice would be caused to the Department by the course adopted by the Tribunal." Again, in the case of Bijoy and Co. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 641, this court took a simi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
