9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e circumstances of the case, the income-tax refunds which became due after the valuation date constitute an asset chargeable to wealth-tax ?" The Tribunal has decided against the assessee, relying upon the ruling of this court in T. V. Srinivasan v. CWT [1985] 152 ITR 599. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said decision of this court requires to be reconsidered inasmuch as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fully and exhaustively considered by the Division Bench in that case. Learned counsel for the Revenue draws our attention to the decision in CIT v. Carborandum Universal Ltd. [1985] 156 ITR 1 (Mad), wherein it was held that the discretion under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could be exercised by the High Court only if it was not satisfied about the correctness of the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew, normally, that construction should be accepted. The principle enunciated in CIT v. Carborandum Universal Ltd. [1985] 156 ITR 1 (Mad) and Sundaram Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 159 ITR 646 (Mad), could come into play only when there is no reason whatever to depart from the view taken already. If the High Court finds in any particular matter that the view taken in an earlier decision requires ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, which would naturally be only after the relevant valuation date, could relate back to the valuation date and such excess tax could be considered to be an asset of the assessee on the date of valuation. Hence, we are of the opinion that the decision of the aforesaid Division Bench of this court requires to be reconsidered. Thus, we are satisfied that the question of law raised in the petition ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
