TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal overturns Wealth Tax assessments, citing lack of jurisdiction & impermissible revision.</h1> <h3>Shri Madanlal Chawla Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Central Circle, 3, Salem</h3> The Appellate Tribunal allowed all appeals filed by the Assessee for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, and 2013-14. The Tribunal found that ... Validity of revisions - change of opinion - Section 25(2) of Wealth Tax Act - Held that:- Admittedly the return in Form-BA is a statutory form and in the said Form, provision has been provided for claiming the set off of the debts owed in relation to asset ‘cash on hand’. When such set off is permissible while computing the value of the specified asset u/s.2(ea)(vi) of the Act, interpretation to section 2(m) is only a change of opinion. In any case, the ld. Assessing Officer, when completing the assessment u/s.16(3) of the Act, has also examined the issue of assessee’s claim in respect of set off of the debts owed in relation to asset ‘cash on hand’. Thus, the order passed u/s 25(2) of the Act by the Principal Commissioner of Wealth Tax is clearly on a change of opinion, which is not permissible for the purpose of revision. The order passed u/s.25(2) of the Act by the Principal Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Central-2, Chennai is set aside as it is done on the basis of change of opinion, which is not permissible u/s.25(2) of the Act - appeal allowed. Issues:- Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Wealth Tax to pass orders under sections 16(3) and 25(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.- Interpretation of provisions regarding set off of debts against the asset 'cash on hand' under section 2(ea)(vi) of the Act.Analysis:1. Jurisdiction under Sections 16(3) and 25(2) of the Wealth Tax Act:The Appellate Tribunal, in the case of WTA No.72/Chny/2018 for the assessment year 2013-14, found that there was no order passed under section 16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax. Consequently, the order passed under section 25(2) by the Principal Commissioner of Wealth Tax was deemed to be without jurisdiction. The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides, annulled the order passed under section 25(2) for the said assessment year, thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee.2. Interpretation of Provisions on Set Off of Debts:In the appeals for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2012-13, the issue revolved around the interpretation of provisions related to the set off of debts against the asset 'cash on hand' as per section 2(ea)(vi) of the Act. The Assessee contended that the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Central-2, Chennai, under section 25(2) was merely a change of opinion and not permissible for revision. The Tribunal noted that the ld. Assessing Officer had already examined the claim for set off of debts during the original assessment under section 16(3). Therefore, the Tribunal held that the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Wealth Tax was based on a change of opinion and set it aside, allowing the appeals of the assessee for the mentioned assessment years.In conclusion, all the appeals filed by the Assessee for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, and 2013-14 were allowed by the Appellate Tribunal, addressing issues related to jurisdiction and interpretation of statutory provisions concerning the set off of debts against the asset 'cash on hand' under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
