COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. PRINCE ASHOK RAJE GAEKWAD

PDF · subscribers

WTR/116/1995HC GujaratGJHC24022798199518 July 2006Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.GARG2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat, in its oral judgment, decided the referred question against the interest of the Revenue. The Court noted that it had already decided Wealth Tax Reference No. 93/95, which was a matter between the same parties for earlier assessment years and was decided against the Revenue. The High Court placed reliance on the decision in 261 ITR 54. Consequently, the Court held that the Tribunal was right in its finding that the assessee, assessed under the status of HUF, is entitled to the benefit of Section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax Act in respect of the property known as "Dhariya Prasad." The reference was disposed of in light of the previous judgment. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred a question of law to the High Court of Gujarat concerning the Wealth Tax Act. The applicant is the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, and the respondent is the assessee, Prince Ashok Raj Gaeikwad. The specific property in dispute is known as "Dhariya Prasad." The ITAT had previously ruled in favor of the assessee in a similar matter for earlier assessment years, specifically in Wealth Tax Reference No. 93/95, which also involved the same parties and was decided against the Revenue. The High Court noted that the notice to the respondent assessee had not been received back.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee, being assessed under the status of HUF, is entitled to the benefit of Section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax Act in respect of the property known as "Dhariya Prasad"? The Revenue, represented by Ms. Mona Bhatt, did not present any arguments, as the office report indicated that the notice to the respondent assessee had not been received back. However, the Court proceeded to decide the matter based on a previous judgment. The Revenue did not explicitly state its contentions, but the reference itself implies a disagreement with the Tribunal's finding regarding the applicability of Section 7(4) to the assessee assessed as HUF for the property in question. The assessee's contentions are not recorded in this judgment, but the Tribunal's decision, which is being reviewed, held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Section 7(4). The Revenue relied on the fact that a similar issue for earlier assessment years was decided in their disfavor in WTR No. 93/95, which involved the same parties and was decided against the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 7(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

WTR/116/1995 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No. 116 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX - Applicant(s) Versus PRINCE ASHOK RAJE GAEKWAD - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1, NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 18/07/2006

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG)

WTR/116/1995 2/2 JUDGMENT

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this Court for its answer. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee being assessed under the status of HUF is entitled to the benefit of sec.7[4] of the Act in respect of the property known as “Dhariya Prasad”?”

Ms. Mona Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant. Office report shows that the notice issued to the respondent assessee is not received back. As we have already decided WTR No.93/95, which was a matter between the same parties for earlier assessment years against the interest of the Revenue after placing our reliance on 261 ITR 54, we do not think that notices are required to be awaited or issued afresh. In view of the judgment passed in WTR 93/95, we answer the question against the interest of Revenue. The Reference stands disposed of. [R.S. GARG, J.] [M.R. SHAH, J.] pirzada/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →