Implied stay power in wealth-tax appeals: consolidated stay application accepted, and recovery stayed where assessed wealth far exceeded returned wealth.

The Tribunal's appellate power under the Wealth-tax Act was treated as carrying an implied incidental authority to stay recovery pending appeal, making a stay application maintainable and court fee payable by analogy to appeal fee provisions. It also accepted, in the special facts, one consolidated stay application for multiple appeals relating to different assessment years, although separate applications are the normal rule. On stay merits, relief was denied for one year because the request had become academic, but stay was granted for the remaining years where assessed wealth was at least twice the returned wealth, following the applicable High Court principle that demand should ordinarily be stayed in such a situation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application for stay of recovery of wealth-tax demand is maintainable and whether court fee is chargeable on such stay application; (ii) whether one consolidated stay application can be entertained in respect of several wealth-tax appeals relating to different assessment years; and (iii) whether stay should be granted for the outstanding demands for the relevant assessment years.

Issue (i): Whether an application for stay of recovery of wealth-tax demand is maintainable and whether court fee is chargeable on such stay application.

Analysis: The appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal was held to carry with it, by necessary implication, the incidental power to grant stay of recovery pending appeal. On that footing, a stay application under the Wealth-tax Act was treated as maintainable. Since the Tribunal entertained the stay jurisdiction in aid of the appellate power, and the Act contained provision for court fee on appeals, the Tribunal also held that court fee would be chargeable on the stay application by analogy.

Conclusion: The stay application was held to be maintainable and court fee was held to be payable.

Issue (ii): Whether one consolidated stay application can be entertained in respect of several wealth-tax appeals relating to different assessment years.

Analysis: The normal rule was stated to be that separate stay applications should be filed for each appeal and assessment year. However, the Tribunal held that the rule did not prohibit a consolidated application in an exceptional case where several appeals arose from one consolidated order, the stay request had already been heard, and entertaining one application would serve the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The consolidated stay application was entertained for all the connected appeals.

Issue (iii): Whether stay should be granted for the outstanding demands for the relevant assessment years.

Analysis: For one assessment year, the stay request was rendered academic because the Tribunal had already passed an earlier order affecting the demand. For the remaining years, the Tribunal found that the assessed wealth was more than twice the returned wealth, and followed the jurisdictional High Court principle that where assessment is made at twice the returned figure or more, the demand should ordinarily be stayed.

Conclusion: Stay was granted for the demands for the later assessment years up to a specified date or disposal of the appeals, whichever was earlier, while the stay request for the academic year was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld its power to entertain the stay request, permitted a consolidated application in the special facts, and granted stay of the outstanding wealth-tax demands for the surviving assessment years, leaving one year without relief because the request had become academic.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate power of the Tribunal includes, by necessary implication, the incidental authority to grant stay of recovery, and where the assessed wealth is at least twice the returned wealth, stay of the demand is ordinarily justified.

---