COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. SMT.SUBHADRA VANICHAND

WTR/99/1997HC GujaratGJHC24020508199708 November 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

This is a Wealth Tax Reference No. 99 of 1997 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, at the instance of the revenue. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, referred two questions of law concerning assessment year 1987-88. The revenue is the petitioner, and the respondent is the assessee, Smt. Subhadra Vanichand. The revenue's counsel, Mr. BB Naik, appeared, while the assessee, though served, did not appear. The High Court noted that the controversy raised in these questions was identical to one decided earlier by the same court in Wealth-tax Reference No. 5 of 1995, also involving the same assessee.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in its oral judgment, referred to its earlier decision rendered on the same day in Wealth-tax Reference No. 5 of 1995, which involved the very same assessee and the same controversy. For the reasons already recorded in that prior decision, the High Court answered both questions in the affirmative, meaning in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Tribunal's decision to cancel the fresh order passed by the AO pursuant to the CWT's directions under Section 25(2) was upheld. Similarly, the Tribunal's holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules was also upheld. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal was asked to decide two questions: 1. Whether the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in cancelling the fresh order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) pursuant to the directions given by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (CWT) under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957? 2. Whether the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee must get the benefit of Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules? Contentions: Assessee: The judgment does not record any contentions made by the assessee. The assessee did not appear before the High Court. Revenue: The revenue, through its counsel Mr. BB Naik, presented its case. The judgment does not detail the specific arguments of the revenue but indicates that the controversy was previously addressed by the High Court in another reference concerning the same assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 25(2),Section 27(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No 99 of 1997

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5.

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 25(2)

All 25 judgments and leading authorities on Section 25(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →