- (1.) By these writ petitions, the petitioner--Lake Palace Hotels and Motels Ltd., Udaipur, has challenged the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Udaipur, rejecting the revision petition under section 25 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1997-98, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax held that the revision petition under section 25 of the Wealth-tax Act against intimation issued under section 16(1) of the Act is not an "order" and, therefore, the revision petition under section 25 of the Act is not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-assessee has approached this court by way of present writ petitions.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjeev Johri, urged that section 25 of the Act of 1957 permits the revision by the Commissioner of an order which has been passed by any authority subordinate to him and the learned Commissioner may either on his own motion or on an application made by the assessee in this behalf, call for the record of any proceedings under this Act and revise such orders on the stated grounds. He submitted that the learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax has fallen into error in rejecting the contention of the assessee that akin to section 16(1) of the Act, the provisions of section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1991 and again on June 1, 1994, by the Finance Act of 1994 which was ultimately omitted with effect from June 1, 1999, by the Finance Act, 1999, and "intimation" sent to the assessee, inter alia, under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act would be deemed to be an "order" between the period from October 1, 1991, to May 31, 1999. He submitted that similar amendments were also made in the Wealth-tax Act and, therefore, the learned Commissioner has erred in holding that the assessment periods in question even though falling outside the period from October 1, 1991, to May 30, 1999, such intimation were not orders and, therefore, the revision petitions were not maintainable. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders dated March 31, 2010, passed by the learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax deserve to be set aside.
(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. K. K. Bissa, submitted that the impugned order is justified and an "intimation" cannot be construed as an "order" since the amendment in law was not in force in the assessment periods in question. He, however, fairly submitted that section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act was amended to construe such "intimation" as an "order" for the assessment years in question as given in the order by the learned Commissioner and even the appeal against such "intimation" was maintainable before the appellate authority under section 246A of the Income-tax Act. He also submitted that section 16 of the Wealth-tax Act also provides that such "intimation" shall have effect or being notice for demand and shall be enforced for recovery of wealth-tax dues, if any.;