9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (7) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On 30th Dec., 1980, the CWT issued a notice under s. 25(2) of the WT Act for these three years observing that the assessee had challenged the levy of income-tax on capital gains amounting to Rs.1,49,741 levied on him in June,1977. The assessee was, therefore, not eligible for deduction allowed by the WTO in the wealth-tax proceedings in respect of this amount of Rs. 1,49,741 by operation of s. 2(M)(iii)(a) of the WT Act. He proposed to modify the assessment for these years by deleting the capital gains tax liability allowed by the WTO in the original proceedings. He also took note of orders under s. 35 passed by the WTO on 2nd Jan., 1980 and observed that in case he (i.e., the CWT) passed orders under s. 25(2) for these years in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued by CWT under s. 25(2) proposing to vacate the allowance of the same liability. (iv) 15-1-1981 Order passed by CWT under s. 25(2) vacating the allowance of the liability. (v) 13-2-1981 Supplementary order passed by the CWT under s. 25(2) vacating the orders passed by WTO dt. 2-1-1980 (vi) 27-1-1982 AAC dismissed assessee's appeal against WTO' s orders under s. 35, as infructuous. 4. The assessee had filed the present appeals before the Tribunal against the orders of the Commr. Under s. 25(2) of the WT Act dt. 15th Jan., 1981. It was the argument on behalf of the assessee that the assessments dt. 31st Jan., 1979 were rectified by the WTO on 2nd Jan., 1980 in respect of the mista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. In the instant case, the Commr. proposed to assume jurisdiction on 30th Dec., 1980. On this date the assessment as made on 31st Jan 1979 we already rectified of this mistake by the WTO by an order under s. 35 passed on 2nd Jan., 1980. Therefore, on 30th Dec., 1980, the error alleged to have been found by the Commr. did not exist in the assessment under consideration. The Commr. was not competent to assume jurisdiction under s. 25(2) of the WT Act. Consequently, the order passed by him on 15th Jan., 1981, that is the order in appeal, also lacked jurisdiction. The order, therefore, requires to be vacated. 6. As to the subsequent developments, namely the order of the Commr. dt. 13th march 1981 cancelling the orders passed by the WTO und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1982 nor the Commr's order dt. 13th Feb., 1981 rendered the WTO's orders dt. 2nd Jan., 1980 non est abinito. The orders under s. 35 held the field till vacated by any competent authority. It is doubtful whether the AAC's or the Commr.'s orders vacated them from the dates on which these authorities passed their respective orders. About one thing however, we are certain and that is that on 30th Dec., 1980, the WTO's order under s. 35 held the field. With these orders in existence the Commr. culd not have issued the notice under s. 25(2) dt. 30th Dec., 1980 and the consequent orders dt. 15th Jan., 1981 and 13th Feb., 1981. Thus, according to us, even the subsequent developments do not support the validity of the order under appeal. The Commr.' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
