Skip to content


Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Karnataka, Bangalore Vs. Vidyavathi Kapur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Petition Nos. 326 and 327 of 1983
Judge
Reported in(1985)44CTR(Kar)174; [1984]150ITR319(KAR); [1984]150ITR319(Karn)
ActsWealth Tax Rules, 1957 - Rule 1BB
AppellantCommissioner of Wealth-tax, Karnataka, Bangalore
RespondentVidyavathi Kapur
Appellant AdvocateH. Raghavendra Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateG. Sarangan, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....any question of law arising out of the order the tribunal, since it is always not disputed that the rules of procedure can be called into aid in respect of pending matters......the additional ground even though it required fresh fact for decision which had to be gathered on further enquiries ?' 2. the dispute in respect of both the questions relates to the applicability of rule 1bb. the tribunal has held that it is a procedural rule and, therefore, it may be given effect to even in respect of pending matters. there is no dispute and indeed it cannot be disputed that rule 1bb is procedural in nature. that being the portion, we fail to see any question of law arising out of the order the tribunal, since it is always not disputed that the rules of procedure can be called into aid in respect of pending matters. 3. civil petitions are, accordingly, rejected.
Judgment:

Jagannatha Shetty, J.

1. The Department seeks a reference in respect of the following two questions :

'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in remitting the matter back to the Wealth-tax Officer for a fresh disposal after applying rule 1BB even though no retrospective effect is given to this rule

2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in entertaining the additional ground even though it required fresh fact for decision which had to be gathered on further enquiries ?'

2. The dispute in respect of both the questions relates to the applicability of rule 1BB. The Tribunal has held that it is a procedural rule and, therefore, it may be given effect to even in respect of pending matters. There is no dispute and indeed it cannot be disputed that rule 1BB is procedural in nature. That being the portion, we fail to see any question of law arising out of the order the Tribunal, since it is always not disputed that the rules of procedure can be called into aid in respect of pending matters.

3. Civil petitions are, accordingly, rejected.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //