COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. AJAY KUMAR B TODY
LAWS(MPH)-1980-10-4
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on October 21,1980

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX Appellant
VERSUS
AJAY KUMAR B. TODY Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS. SAVITRI DAWAR [LAWS(MPH)-1990-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS. ASHA DIGVIJAYA SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-1996-8-62] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

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 ? "

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.

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

(3.)THE applications are, therefore, dismissed. THEre shall be no order as to costs.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.