Natural justice in wealth-tax appeals does not require a mandatory hearing for the Wealth-tax Officer; order upheld.

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner under the Wealth-tax Act exercises wide appellate and revisional powers as a departmental reviewing authority, not as a civil court resolving a contest between adversaries. Because section 23 contained no express requirement to give the Wealth-tax Officer notice or a hearing, and comparable provisions in other enactments showed that the legislature could have required it if intended, the absence of such hearing did not invalidate the order. Principles of natural justice and fair play did not create a mandatory right of hearing for the Wealth-tax Officer, although the authority could hear him where necessary. The order was therefore not bad in law for want of that opportunity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 23 of the Wealth-tax Act was bad in law for want of opportunity of hearing to the Wealth-tax Officer.

Analysis: The Appellate Assistant Commissioner under the Wealth-tax Act was held to exercise wide appellate and revisional powers, akin to a departmental reviewing authority and not as a civil court deciding a lis between two contesting parties. The absence of an express provision in the Wealth-tax Act requiring notice to the Wealth-tax Officer was material, particularly when the legislature had made specific provisions in other enactments where a hearing to the assessing officer was intended. The Court further held that principles of natural justice and fair play did not, by themselves, imply a mandatory right of hearing to the Wealth-tax Officer in such appeals, though the authority could hear him if it considered it necessary.

Conclusion: The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not bad in law for want of opportunity of hearing to the Wealth-tax Officer.

---