Skip to content


Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Ajay Kumar B. Tody - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous Civil Case Nos. 168, 169 and 170 of 1979
Judge
Reported in[1983]143ITR148(MP)
ActsWealth Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 18(1) and 27(2)
AppellantCommissioner of Wealth-tax
RespondentAjay Kumar B. Tody
Appellant AdvocateS.C. Bagdiya, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateNone
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant......has filed applications under section 27(2) of the w.t. act, 1957, for a direction to the appellate tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions for opinion:' (1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in law in holding that the explanation to section 18(1)(c) was not attracted in the assessee's case and, consequently, deleting penalties of rs. 45,000, rs. 1,40,000 and rs. 1,76,440? (2) whether the tribunal's decision could reasonably be arrived at on the basis of material considered by it ' 3. we have examined the consolidated order of the appellate tribunal on the question of liability of the assessees for penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the w.t. act. the tribunal in essence held that the difference in.....
Judgment:

Shukla, J.

1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 169 of 1979 (CWT v. Abhay Kumar) and Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 170 of 1979 (CWT v. Anil Kumar) as they arise out of a consolidated order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 15th September, 1978.

2. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax has filed applications under Section 27(2) of the W.T. Act, 1957, for a direction to the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions for opinion:

' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Explanation to Section 18(1)(c) was not attracted in the assessee's case and, consequently, deleting penalties of Rs. 45,000, Rs. 1,40,000 and Rs. 1,76,440?

(2) Whether the Tribunal's decision could reasonably be arrived at on the basis of material considered by it '

3. We have examined the consolidated order of the Appellate Tribunal on the question of liability of the assessees for penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the W.T. Act. The Tribunal in essence held that the difference in computation of wealth as shown in the return and as finally determined was due to the fact that the break-up value of the shares of the assessees in Jaora Sugar Mills had been calculated after making allowance for certain liabilities. The Tribunal observed that whether the liabilities were contingent or certain was a tricky question of law and related to the interpretation of certain statutes and, therefore, the calculation made by the assessees at a lower figure did not indicate concealment of particulars of wealth. This basic finding was a finding of fact on which the penalties had been cancelled.

4. The proposed questions are, therefore, questions of fact and a reference under Section 27(2) of the Wealth-tax Act is not competent.

5. The applications are, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.


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