2000 (7) TMI 65 - HC - Wealth-tax

Court Upholds Commissioner's Jurisdiction under Wealth-tax Act

The High Court ruled against the assessee, affirming the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax to pass an order under section 25(2) of the ... Wealth Tax, Appeal, Revision Issues:Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax to pass an order under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.Analysis:The case involved a question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax to pass an order under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The assessee had initially declared a wealth of Rs. 4,56,376 for the assessment year 1972-73, which was later revised to Rs. 6,80,826. The assessment was completed on a net wealth of Rs. 7,53,087, excluding the value of a flat in Himalya House at Delhi. Subsequently, an order was passed including the value of the flat, resulting in a total wealth of Rs. 8,03,037. The Commissioner issued a show cause notice under section 25(2) to enhance the value of the flat, which was objected to by the assessee on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The Commissioner set aside the assessment, directing a fresh assessment to determine the fair market value of the property. The Tribunal accepted the plea of lack of jurisdiction, leading to the reference to the High Court.The main issue for adjudication was whether a point not raised in appeal could be considered decided, invoking the doctrine of merger. The High Court referred to various judgments to elucidate the principles of the doctrine of merger. It was noted that the doctrine's application depends on the nature of the appellate order and the scope of statutory provisions conferring appellate jurisdiction. The Court highlighted that the doctrine of merger does not apply where an appeal is dismissed for certain reasons like default, abatement, or limitation. The Court emphasized that the doctrine of merger does not apply to issues not challenged before a higher forum.In conclusion, the High Court answered the question referred in the negative, favoring the Revenue and against the assessee. The Court held that in cases where an issue is not subject to challenge before a higher forum, the doctrine of merger would not apply. The reference was disposed of accordingly, affirming the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax to pass an order under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.