TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 514
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as extra income of the appellant was available with the appellant for purposes of taxation under the Wealth Tax Act"? 2. The petitioner's application for reference of such question submitted before the Tribunal under subsection(1) of Section 256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was rejected by the Tribunal vide orders dated 11th March, 1994, pertaining to the assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89. 3. The facts of these matters are that the Income Tax Officer while assessing the petitioner's income found that the total surplus available with the petitioner by way of income being Rs.21,15,164/and the total wealth disclosed by the petitioner being Rs.97,25,000/, the increase in the wealth is to the tune of Rs.76,09,836/The said income of Rs.76....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see is rejected by the Appellate Tribunal for reference of question to the High Court then, the assessee can submit the application before the High Court under sub-section( 2) of Section 256 of the Act of 1961. Sub-section( 2) of Section 256 of the Act of 1961 provided that in such case when petitioner's prayer has been rejected by the Tribunal and he has filed the Tax Case in the High Court then, the High Court may, if satisfied, ask the Appellate tribunal to state the case and refer the question of law to the High Court. Said procedure has now been deleted and today it is not required that such Tax Case be filed under Section 256(2) of the Act of 1961 and the High Court should ask the Tribunal to send the statement of case and question to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....984) 146 ITR 552(SC). In the said case, the same issue was before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue in para11 which will be relevant and is quoted hereinbelow: Para-11 "As regard the elaboration of the contention based on a presumption sought to be raised by counsel for the revenue against the assessee-companies from the analogy of the presumption arising in income-tax cases under S.68 of the IT Act, 1961, the contention is fallacious for two reasons. It is true that by reason of the settlement made under the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947, the assessee companies must be taken to have admitted that they had made secret profits which were kept out of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st Dec. 1956, and, therefore, the presumption as suggested by the counsel cannot be drawn against the assessee-companies after a lapse of 8 long years. In Annamma Paul Perincherry vs. CWT TC 664R. 290 and CWT Vs. J.K.Jute Mills Co.Ltd. ( 1980) 16 CTR (All) 112: (1979) 120 ITR 150(All): TC 64R.289, the Kerala High Court as well as the Allahabad High Court have taken a similar view that no such presumption can be raised after a lapse of a sufficiently long period and we approve of the said view. In any case, as sated above, the deductibility of the two tax liabilities in question does not depend upon whether the assets in respect whereof such liability has been determined, are available or not while aggregating the assets of the assessee-comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsidered the case of J.K.Cotton Manufacturers Ltd. 10. At the outset, we may state that Mishrilal Jain's case has it's own facts which were ignored by the Tribunal. In that case the intangible additions was of the year 196768 and relevant assessment year for the wealth tax was 1971-72. Therefore, in short period of four years, when plea was taken that the said intangible assets must have extinguished, was not accepted on facts. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K.Cotton Manufacturers Ltd. has clearly observed that after lapse of sufficiently a long period, no presumption can be raised that a secret profit earned sometime during the concerned year has continued to be held by the assessee on the valuation date. Therefore....