COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. PASHINA SETTELEMENT

PDF · subscribers
WTR/156/1996HC GujaratGJHC24022086199629 January 1998Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat, while disposing of the reference, answered the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Court stated that the facts and the question involved were similar to Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93, which was also decided on the same day. For the reasons given in the judgment and order delivered in Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93, the Court found the Appellate Tribunal to be correct in its direction. The principle established is that if the facts and issues are identical to a previously decided case, the same reasoning and outcome will apply. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. The operative direction was to uphold the Tribunal's order to charge wealth tax at the normal rate.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax has referred a question of law to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The reference arises from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The assessee is Pashina Settlement, and the revenue is the Commissioner of Wealth Tax. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The dispute concerns the rate at which wealth tax should be charged. The Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) had charged wealth tax at the maximum marginal rate of 3%, while the Appellate Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to charge it at the normal rate. The High Court notes that the facts and the question involved are similar to another case, Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93, decided on the same day.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to charge wealth tax at the normal rate as against the maximum marginal rate of 3% charged by the WTO? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. The judgment states that the respondent (assessee) was served, and the petitioner (revenue) was represented by Mr. P.G. Desai with Mr. Manish R Bhatt. However, the specific arguments made by either side are not detailed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 27(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No 156 of 1996

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question 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?

-------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus PASHINA SETTELEMENT

--------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance: MR P.G. DESAI with MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner Respondent served

--------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE Date of decision: 29/01/98

ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per R.K.Abichandani,J.)

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad has referred for the opinion of this Court the following question under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to charge rate at normal rate as against the maximum marginal rate of 3% charged by the WTO?"

A similar question has been answered by us today in Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93. Since the facts are similar and the question involved almost identical, we do not find it necessary to reproduce the facts of this case. For the reasons given by us in our judgement and order delivered in Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93 today, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

----

*/Mohandas

More judgments on Section 27(1)

All 322 judgments and leading authorities on Section 27(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →