9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inion under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax passed under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which directed the Wealth-tax Officer to consider initiation of proceedings under section 18(1)(a) of the Act in the fresh assessment proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile relying upon the decision in the case of Shri J. K. D'Costa, New Delhi v. ITO, Private Salary Circle-VI reported in Taxation, April 1973 issue, section VI, page 100, and also relying upon another decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Satya Narain Shiv Shankar, Delhi and Shri R. L. Puri, c/o. M/s. Prakash Bros. & Co. Karol Bagh, New Delhi, set aside the order of the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Achal Kumar Jain [1983] 142 ITR 606. On a similar question, a matter came up before Chadha and Goel JJ. in the case of P. C. Puri v. CIT [1985] 151 ITR 584 (Delhi) and on a difference of opinion between the learned judges, the matter was referred to a third judge, A. B. Rohatgi J., sitting as third judge, with Chadha J., and approved the decision in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Wealth-tax Officer is erroneous merely because the Wealth-tax Officer failed to initiate penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(a) read with section 18(2) of the Wealth-tax Act. The question is accordingly answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Since nobody has appeared to contest the reference on behalf of the assessee, parties are left to bear their own costs of the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
