1981 (8) TMI 25 - HC - Wealth-tax

Appeal Upheld, Tribunal to Rehear Case | Legal Update

The court held that the Department's appeal against the AAC's order dropping rectification proceedings was maintainable under Section 24. The Tribunal's ... - Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.2. Retrospective amendment of Section 5(1)(viii) by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971.3. Rectification of errors under Section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act.4. Maintainability of the Department's appeal against the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's (AAC) order dropping rectification proceedings.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957The Wealth Tax Act, 1957, imposes tax on the net wealth of a taxpayer, calculated as the excess of assets over debts. Section 5(1) lists exempted assets, including 'wearing apparel' under clause (viii). The Supreme Court, in CWT v. Arundhati Balkrishna [1970] 77 ITR 505 (SC), held that jewellery could be considered as 'wearing apparel' and thus exempt. However, Parliament amended Section 5(1)(viii) through the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971, explicitly excluding jewellery from the definition of 'wearing apparel,' effective retrospectively from April 1, 1963.Issue 2: Retrospective amendment of Section 5(1)(viii) by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971The retrospective amendment meant that jewellery owned by a taxpayer would not be exempt from wealth tax from the assessment year 1963-64 onwards. This legislative change impacted the assessment for the year 1969-70, where the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) included jewellery in the assessee's taxable net wealth. The AAC initially deleted the value of the jewellery based on the Supreme Court's decision, but this became incorrect due to the retrospective amendment.Issue 3: Rectification of errors under Section 35 of the Wealth Tax ActSection 35 allows rectification of apparent errors in orders passed by wealth-tax authorities. The AAC, realizing the error in his order due to the retrospective amendment, initiated rectification proceedings under Section 35. However, the AAC later dropped these proceedings, agreeing with the assessee's contention that the error was not apparent from the record and thus not rectifiable under Section 35.Issue 4: Maintainability of the Department's appeal against the AAC's order dropping rectification proceedingsThe AAC's decision to drop the rectification proceedings was communicated to the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (CWT), who instructed the WTO to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding it non-maintainable, as orders under Section 35 were not considered appellate orders under Section 23, which are appealable under Section 24. The Department argued that rectification is an adjunct to the appellate process, and any order passed under Section 35 should be seen as part of the appellate order under Section 23.The court agreed with the Department's broader interpretation, holding that rectification orders, whether resulting in actual rectification or not, impinge on the appellate order and thus fall under Section 23. Consequently, the appeal against the AAC's order dropping the rectification proceedings was maintainable under Section 24.Conclusion:The court held that the Department's appeal against the AAC's order dated December 24, 1973, was maintainable. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was erroneous. The Tribunal must re-hear the appeal and decide it on merits. The reference was answered in favor of the Department, and the assessee was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 500.