TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (9) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pleted was a debatable question? " The High Court certified the question to be of general public importance which required a decision of this court but, in our view, on the facts of the case, it is unnecessary to decide that question as the appeal could be disposed of briefly on the basis that the assessment in question could not be regarded as having become final or complete and, therefore, the postulate being absent, the question does not arise. The facts which are said to give rise to the question raised in the appeal are these. For the assessment year 1969-70, the respondent-assessee was assessed for wealth-tax purposes on a total wealth of Rs. 6,87,690, which included jewellery and ornaments of the value of Rs. 4,15,942 by an assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts. The assessee appeared and objected to the proposed rectification but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that his predecessor has committed a mistake apparent on the face of the record in excluding the said jewellery and ornaments and he was, therefore, entitled to rectify the order passed by his predecessor and actually passed the rectification order against the assessee on February 22, 1972. The assessee challenged the said order by filing a writ petition in the High Court. The counsel for the assessee contended before the High Court that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no power to rectify his predecessor's order dated June 26, 1970, in view of the fact that there was no error apparent on the face of the record becaus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision because of this court's subsequent decision in ITO v. S. K. Habibullah [1962] 44 ITR 809 and the observations made therein and, in fact, one of the learned judges who decided the matter expressed the view that " if that decision (in Bombay Dyeing's case [1958] 34 ITR 143 (SC) (p. 525 of 94 ITR)) had stood alone, I might have been disposed to record the question that arises in the present case as concluded by the Supreme Court (by reason of that decision) and to decide this petition in favour of Mr. Joshi." The court further felt that the question as to whether the retrospectivity given by the Amending Act would cover cases of completed assessments was itself a debatable question and following the decision of this court in Balaram, I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... behalf this court pointed out that irrespective of the question whether any appeal had been preferred or not against it, that initial order was liable to be modified or rectified under section 35 of the Act, and, therefore, could not be said to have become final or complete and, as such, the contention raised would not be of much assistance to the assessee. After referring to the decision of the Privy Council in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Commissioner, AIR 1927 PC 242, as also to the Board's decision in Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving [1905] AC 369, this court with reference to the precise argument observed thus (p. 147 of 34 ITR): " The same argument is put in another form by contending that the finality o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll within four years of the period of limitation available to him under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act. This is not a case where the resort to the rectification power was required to be made by reference to any provision in the Amending Act but de hors the Amending Act, power was sought to be exercised under the original section, namely, section 35(7) of the Wealth tax Act. If that be so, following the observations quoted above, it must be held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order dated June 26, 1970, had not become final in the literal sense of the word notwithstanding the fact that no appeal had been preferred against that order or that the requisite period for appeal was allowed to expire. The said order was and continued ....