TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (4) TMI 30
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld that in view of the provisions of section 43 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for convenience), the civil court did not have the jurisdiction to decide the present suit. The few facts need to be stated for the purpose of unfolding the controversy indicated by the present appeal are stated as mentioned hereunder. As averred by the appellant, on October 30, 1956, Rao Nihalkaran, son of Rao Chhattrakaran and Mrs. Vandanadevi, wife of Rao Nihalkaran, executed a trust deed and by that deed Rao Nihalkaran transferred the suit property which was belonging to him bearing No. 22, Raoji Bazar, Indore, to the said trust. The original plaintiffs in the said suit averred further that the possession of the suit prope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e provisions of section 43 of the Act and the record submitted that the impugned order is not correct, proper and legal because in view of the provisions of section 43, the civil court was having the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit as it has been brought. For substantiating his argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Maina Debi Goenka v. Union of India [1978] 115 ITR 423. Shri D. D. Vyas, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, argued by making reference to section 43 of the Act and the record that after refuting the averments made in the plaint there cannot be any doubt that the civil court did not have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titled to bring any suit for getting the relief as prayed for by them in paragraph No. 9 of the plaint. Countering this, it is the contention of Shri Rege that the appellants are not praying for any relief so far as assessment is concerned. He reiterated the contention of the appellants in the plaint is that the suit was not brought for modifying any assessment made under the Act. Section 2, clause (c), gives the definition of "assessee" as a person by whom wealth-tax or any other sum of money is payable under this Act. Sub-clause (i) of clause (c) defines "assessee" as every person in respect of whom any proceeding under this Act has been taken for the determination of wealth-tax payable by him or by any other person or the amount of re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by making reference to the reply filed by the respondents that by virtue of the provisions of section 12A of the Act the Valuation Officer can be appointed for the purpose of valuation of the property and by the provisions of section 16A, the aggrieved person can make a reference to the competent authority. It has been pointed out that in view of the provisions of section 38A, the property to be valued can be inspected. This process is to be carried out in accordance with section 43 of the Act. The Wealth-tax Act has provided for an appeal to the Commissioner in respect of the grievance in assessment and if the Commissioner finds it necessary the property can be revalued, reassessed. The structure of the Wealth-tax Act indicates that it is....