TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (11) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 to 1974-75 made by the Assessing Officer on January 27, 1987, were barred by limitation? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified to hold that the fresh assessments made by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1974-75 on January 27, 1987, were barred by limitation ? " The assessee, Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel, was a partner in the firm, Mohanlal Hargovinddas, and had a 50 per cent. share therein. He retired therefrom on October 24, 1963, and the remaining partners were Shri Shravan Kumar Patel and Smt. Ujjambai. An agreement was entered into between the assessee on the one hand and the remaining two partners on the other, providing, inter alia, that notwithstanding the retirement of the assessee from the partnership,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... considered the yield aspect from the said goodwill. He, therefore, took the equivalent of 50 per cent. of the total yield of goodwill, which according to him, was to be calculated on the basis of profit of goodwill of the share of the assessee at Rs. 18 lakhs for each of the assessment years vide order dated January 21, 1987. The assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) against the order of the Assessing Officer dated January 21, 1987. According to the assessee, the actuarial valuation of the asset of goodwill was Rs. 2,03,125 vide report of K. P. Pandit, Consulting Actuary. Alternatively, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the valuation of the goodwill should be taken as yield of Rs. 50,000 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uation of the asset of the goodwill for the assessment year 1977-78 should be taken at Rs. 3,33,333. Learned counsel for the Department submitted that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that there was no challenge before the Tribunal regarding the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) setting aside the assessments. It was submitted that the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) was on the same ground which is the subject-matter of the appeals. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) merged in the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and hence the order of the Assessing Officer is within the time-limit prescribed under the Act and the Tribunal erred in holding that the reassessments....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lenge of the assessee before the Tribunal was only limited to the mode of valuation of the asset to be done by the Assessing Officer in compliance with the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) setting aside the assessment. Therefore, the period of limitation is to be computed from the date of the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) and if that be so, then the reassessment for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1974-75 is barred by limitation. In fact, the chronological events as mentioned above show that the Revenue did not approach the Tribunal against order dated September 14, 1979, and there was nothing to prevent them from making the assessment. Though the assessee had filed an appeal before the Tribunal and that....