https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25822 The court held that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax had jurisdiction to entertain the revisional applications as the appeals to the Appellate Tribunal by the Wealth-tax Officer did not constitute effective appeals by the respondent. The interpretation of proviso (b) to section 25(1) of the Wealth-tax Act was clarified to require the order to be the subject of an effective appeal by the aggrieved party for the Commissioner to be barred from revising it. The court emphasized the importance of natural justice, ruling that the Commissioner should have allowed the respondent an opportunity to be heard before rejecting the revisional applications. The court dismissed the appeal by the Commissioner and upheld the judgment directing proper disposal of the revisional applications. en-us Wed, 10 Jan 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:40:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25822 The court held that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax had jurisdiction to entertain the revisional applications as the appeals to the Appellate Tribunal by the Wealth-tax Officer did not constitute effective appeals by the respondent. The interpretation of proviso (b) to section 25(1) of the Wealth-tax Act was clarified to require the order to be the subject of an effective appeal by the aggrieved party for the Commissioner to be barred from revising it. The court emphasized the importance of natural justice, ruling that the Commissioner should have allowed the respondent an opportunity to be heard before rejecting the revisional applications. The court dismissed the appeal by the Commissioner and upheld the judgment directing proper disposal of the revisional applications. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Jan 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25822