Skip to content


Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Jambukumarsingh Kasliwal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous Petition No. 275 of 1984
Judge
Reported in[1987]166ITR623(MP)
ActsWealth Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 5(1) and 27(3)
AppellantCommissioner of Wealth-tax
RespondentJambukumarsingh Kasliwal
Advocates:R.C. Mukati, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....of the wealth-tax act, 1957, is not retrospective in nature and consequently in excluding the value of jewellery from the net wealth of the assessee '3. the facts giving rise to this application may be stated in brief thus : the wealth-tax officer included the value of the jewellery as follows :assessmentyearamount rs.1964-552,66,1251965-662,15,2401966-672,40,4251967-682,74,1004. the assessee went in appeal before the appellate assistant commissioner who took the view that explanation 1 to section 5(1)(viii) of the wealth-tax act is not retrospective and consequently excluded the value of the jewellery from the taxable wealth of the assessee.5. the department filed an appeal before the tribunal which upheld the findings of the appellate assistant commissioner by relying on the full.....
Judgment:

1. Shri R. C. Mukati, counsel for the applicant, was heard on the question of admission.

2. This is an application filed by the applicant, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, with a prayer to call upon the Tribunal to send the statement of the case in connection with the following question of law which arises in this case :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Explanation 1 to Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is not retrospective in nature and consequently in excluding the value of jewellery from the net wealth of the assessee '

3. The facts giving rise to this application may be stated in brief thus : the Wealth-tax Officer included the value of the jewellery as follows :

Assessmentyear

Amount Rs.

1964-55

2,66,125

1965-66

2,15,240

1966-67

2,40,425

1967-68

2,74,100

4. The assessee went in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who took the view that Explanation 1 to Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act is not retrospective and consequently excluded the value of the jewellery from the taxable wealth of the assessee.

5. The Department filed an appeal before the Tribunal which upheld the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by relying on the Full Bench decision of this court in CIT v. Smt. Tarabai Kanakmal : [1983]140ITR374(MP) .

6. An application filed by the Department for making a reference to this court was rejected. Hence this application.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that against the Full Bench judgment an appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court which is pending and, therefore, the Tribunal in this case should be called upon to send the statement.

8. However, in our opinion, this by itself is not a valid ground to entertain this application in view of the Full Bench decision referred to above. Consequently, we see no valid ground to entertain this petition and decline to call upon the Tribunal to make a reference as prayed for.


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