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>Appeal Dismissed Upholding Authority Orders; Notice Given; Valid Order under Different Designation; Equity Share Value Justified</h1> <h3>Shantilal R. Lunkad. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Wealth-tax Inv. Cir 3(2).</h3> Shantilal R. Lunkad. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Wealth-tax Inv. Cir 3(2). - ITD 096, 039, Issues:1. Violation of rules of natural justice in passing the order under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.2. Validity of the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 35 of the W.T. Act, 1957.3. Adoption of the value of equity shares by the Assessing Officer.Issue 1:The assessee contended that the order under section 35 was passed in violation of rules of natural justice. The CWT(A) found that a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee, but there was no response. The CWT(A) rejected the claim of lack of opportunity for being heard. The ITAT upheld this finding, stating that the order was passed after due notice, and hence, the claim of violation of natural justice was unjustified.Issue 2:The assessee challenged the validity of the order signed by the Assessing Officer under a different designation. The ITAT noted the provisions of section 42C of the Wealth-tax Act, which allow for mistakes in proceedings if they are in conformity with the intent of the Act. The ITAT agreed with the CWT(A) that the order was valid despite the incorrect designation, as it was in line with the purpose of the Act.Issue 3:Regarding the adoption of the value of equity shares by the Assessing Officer, the ITAT reviewed the arguments presented. The CWT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision based on the Explanation to Rule 11 of Part C of Schedule III. The ITAT concurred with the CWT(A) that the Assessing Officer's action was justified, as it followed the provisions of the Act and the Supreme Court's interpretation. The ITAT rejected the appeal on this ground, affirming the CWT(A)'s order.In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the orders of the authorities below on all three issues raised in the appeal.
TaxTMI 