2006 (5) TMI 73

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Commissioner of Income-tax and vide an order dated March 28, 2000, the appeal was partly allowed. The Wealth-tax Officer was directed to adopt valuation of Rs. 15 lakhs for the assessment year 1991-92 and Rs. 20 lakhs for the assessment year 1992-93. The assessee felt content with the relief granted and did not prefer an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Revenue, however, preferred an appeal against the order before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the appeal was disposed of vide order dated September 23, 2004. The Appellate Tribunal while rejecting the appeal of the Revenue observed that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax regarding valuation of the ticket was not in accordance with law. The Tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion Ltd. v. CST [1992] 87 STC 266. In this judgment the Gujarat High Court has held that: "In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly pointed out that when a Tribunal decides any question and interprets a provision of law, while doing so, it cannot be said to be laying down any law for the State or settling the law for the State. It is no doubt true, as contended by the learned advocate for the applicant, that whatever the Tribunal decides is binding on the subordinate authorities including the Commissioner, but that is because the Tribunal is a superior authority in the hierarchy of administration. Merely for that reason, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be said to have the effect of deciding or settling law for the State. In our opini....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alth-tax (Appeals) and stated that the order be not reversed. The appellant chose to prefer an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) only after the order of the Tribunal making some observation in his favour came. We consider that a party who had been content with the order and due to that reason has not preferred an appeal, cannot later on, on seeing some observation in a judgment or a finding about the law plead that the delay be condoned of the entire period for which the party had felt content and not preferred an appeal. The appellant did not prefer an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) for about five years in one case for about one and half years in another case. Ignoran....