2004 (7) TMI 46

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rejecting the two petitioners' revision petitions under section 25 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on the ground that the revision petitions were filed beyond the period of limitation. In both the cases, the petitioners, two in number, submitted that through oversight and because of wrong interpretation of the provision granting exemption under section 5(vi) of the Act with effect from the assessment year 1994-95, the petitioners did not claim exemption in respect of one house or part of the house belonging to the respective petitioners. The petitioners and their chartered accountant were under the belief that with effect from the assessment year 1994-95, the amendment in the Wealth-tax Act by the Fina....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly, rejected the application for condoning the delay in filing the revision petitions in respect of all the assessment years. That is the order under challenge in these petitions. At the hearing of these petitions, Mr. R.K. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the impugned orders suffer from the vice of non-application of mind. For the assessment year 2001-02, the petitioners had filed original returns on November 28, 2001 and thereafter filed revised returns on September 5, 2002, claiming exemption under section 5(vi). Since the revised returns were filed within the period of limitation and no intimation was received under section 16(1), there was no infirmity in the petitioners' claim for exemption for the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er substantial justice. By dismissing the revision petitions only on the ground of limitation, the Commissioner has preferred technical considerations to substantial justice in spite of the in disputable legal position flowing from the Central Board of Direct Taxes circular issued as far back as in 1973 that a house included building for residential purpose as well as the building for commercial purpose. On the other hand, Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, has opposed the petitions and submitted that when the petitioners had moved the Commissioner after delay of more than five years the Commissioner was justified in refusing to condone the delay. As far a the assessment year 2001-02 is concerned, learned stan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r part of a house belonging to an individual or a Hindu undivided family." After the aforesaid amendment with effect from April 1,1972, the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued circular dated July 24, 1973, which reads as under: "CTR EXCERPTS ON DIRECT TAXES Board F.No. 317/23/73-WT House used for commercial purposes-Exemption under section 5(1)(iv) 24th July, 1973. I am directed to invite a reference to your letter, dated June 28, 1973, on the above subject and to say that your presumption is correct and exemption under section 5(1)(iv) is available even for houses used for commercial purpose." In view of various amendments to the provision for grant of exemption in respect of the house belonging to the assessee and in....