9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m was informed that Shri Rakesh Mohan had to leave for Bombay suddenly and, therefore, the papers were despatched by air to Bombay. The papers, it was stated, received the attention of Shri Rakesh Mohan only on 3-1-1982 and accordingly, they were received in the office of the counsel on 4-1-1982 when they were filed in the office of the Tribunal, Delhi. It has also been stated that, in fact, the Tribunal's fee had been paid on 19-12-1981. According to the assessee, the delay was caused due to these peculiar circumstances. After considering the condonation application and after hearing the counsel on both the sides, we are of the view that the delay was bona fide and for a reasonable cause which requires to be condoned. The appeal is, therefore, held to be entertainable and in time. So far as the other two appeals are concerned, they were filed in time. 4. The assessees are private trusts. The corpus of the Trusts consists of 60,000 equity shares of Mohan Meakin Breweries Limited. The wealth-tax assessments for the assessment year 1978-79 in question were completed under section 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), on 25-10-1979 in the status of individual on the basis t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessee, namely, that the Commissioner had erred in not granting a fair and adequate opportunity to the assessee. Elaborating in this submission, Shri Agrawal pointed out that the notices issued on 12-10-1981 were not notices in the eyes of law and, therefore, jurisdiction was not rightly assumed by the Commissioner on the basis thereof. The notices are in Hindi. He pointed out the following infirmities in the notices : (i) In the 'subject' of the notices reference was made to section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act and not to section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. (ii) In para 1 of the notice reference was made to the ITO, A-Ward, Cir. II Lucknow and reference was made to order passed under section 16(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (iii) In para 1 of the notice reference was made to Aayekar/Dhankar Adhikari showing that mind had not been applied as to whether it was 'Aayekar Adhikari' or 'Dhankar Adhikari'. (iv) In para 1 of the notice the language used was--'KI AAYEKAR/DHANKAR ADHIKARI DWARA 1,50,000 KI CHHOOT DHANKAR ADHINIYAM 21(4) KE ADHIN DEY NAHIN HAI JO TRUTIPURN HAI AUR RAJASV KE PRATIKOOL HAI'. (v) In para 2 of the notice again reference was made to sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the exemption of Rs. 1,50,000 granted by the WTO in the assessment orders was not admissible in view of the provisions of section 21(4) and that it was not necessary to further elaborate that the shares of the persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit the assets were held, were indeterminate or unknown. Shri Upadhyay also pointed out that the assessees properly understood what notice was given by the Commissioner and, therefore, there was nothing wrong with the notices. He, therefore, submitted that jurisdiction was rightly assumed by the Commissioner in these cases on the basis of these notices. Regarding the want of opportunity, he pointed out that the adjournment applications dated 17-10-1981 were left by the assessees at the counter of the ITO, without caring to find out as to what orders had been passed thereon and that it was the duty of the assessees themselves to have informed themselves about the result of the said applications. In this connection reference was made by him to the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Auto Sales v. STO [1974] UPTC 622. He also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Sant Baba Mohan Singh v. CIT [1973] 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of revenue. The mention of 'A-Ward, Circle II Lucknow' was quite appropriate and the section under which the order dated 25-10-1979 was passed was correctly mentioned as section 16(3) though the Act referred to the 1961 Act in place of the 1957 Act. In the body of para 1 of the notices it was clearly pointed out that the exemption of Rs. 1,50,000 was not admissible in view of section 21(4) on account of which the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. We also find a lot of force in the submissions made on behalf of the revenue that the notices have to be reasonably construed and that we have to see whether the assessee properly understood what the notices were for. In this connection, it is relevant to peruse the applications moved on behalf of the assessee for adjournment. The applications were to the following effect : "ROCKY VILLA DALIGANJ LUCKNOW The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Ashok Marg, Lucknow. Re : Your Notice under section 25(2) of the WT Act, 1957 for the assessment year 1978-79 in the case of : 1st son of Pankaj Mohan Sir, I acknowledge with thanks the receipt of your above notice dated 12-10-1981 in the afternoon of 16-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nothing on the record nor in the order of the Commissioner to show that the facts stated in the adjournment applications were not correct, the refusal to grant adjournment was not justified. As recorded by the Commissioner himself in his order, he was overawed by the consideration that the cases were getting time-barred on 24-10-1981 and that is the only reason on account of which the adjournments were refused by him. Even though the adjournment applications were left by the assessees at the counter on 17-10-1981 the Commissioner did take notice of them. The above considerations become all the more relevant when we see that only 3 days' time was given to the assessee to produce evidence. In our view, 3 days' time was absolutely inadequate particularly having regard to the fact that the assessee's counsel was not available and that the matter was such as had been dealt with in the cases of the first son of Hemant Mohan and first son of Rakesh Mohan (P.) Trusts, Lucknow at length even by the Tribunal. Even if, therefore, it was for the assessees to find out the fate of the adjournment applications moved by them, the opportunity of hearing provided to the assessees was absolutely inad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
