9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner became a partner in M/s. Ramkumar Jalan after the death of her husband, the late Gajanand Jalan, in September, 1953. The petitioner filed returns under the W.T. Act for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1962-63 and in the said wealth-tax returns, the petitioner showed her interest in M/s. Ramkumar Jalan as a partner. The WTO, while assessing the petitioner under the W.T Act, included a sum of Rs. 26,39,427 in the assets of M/s. Ramkumar Jalan, being the amount of disclosed income of the partners of M/s. Ramkumar Jalan for the years 1940 to 1946. The WTO also included the interest amount credited by Narayan Hosiery Private Limited in their books of account to the account of M/s. Ramchandra Ramkumar on the relevant valuation date. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral-I, Bombay, rejected all the petitions in respect of the relevant assessment years by consolidated order, and that order is under challenge. Shri Dwarkadas, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, reiterated the same contentions urged before the officer exercising powers under s. 25(1) of the W.T. Act. It was urged that the amount of Rs. 19,33,841 should not have been included in the wealth of the assessee in the assessment years 1957-58 to 1962-63, as it does not form part of the wealth. The Commissioner has pointed out that the same contention was advanced before the Income-tax Tribunal in the case of another partner, that is, Tolaram Jalan, and the Tribunal rejected the contentions by an order dated May 31,1976. The T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pparent on the face of record, but the application was turned down on the ground that there was no merit in the application. Shri Dwarkadas urged that the Commissioner, in the present case, declined to apply his own mind to the contentions urged before him but has merely followed the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Tolaram Jalan, and, therefore, the order of the Commissioner suffers from serious infirmity. In my judgment, the submissions urged in this petition are entirely devoid of any merit. In exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India, it must be remembered that this court is not sitting as an appellate authority, and it is not open for this court to disturb the impugned order and record its own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
