1983 (1) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....974, for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64; W.T. Reference No. 9 of 1981, for the assessment year 1957-58; and W.T. Reference No. 69 of 1977 also for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1974-75. The main question involved in these references is whether the assessment to wealth-tax was liable to be made under s. 21(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957, or under s. 21(4) of the said Act. In this judgment we are dealing only with the questions which are referred in W.T. Reference No. 72 of 1977 and for the purpose of convenience we are answering other references separately by separate orders, though the facts are identical and the document of wakf involved and which falls for consideration is the same in all these references. The wakf deed in questi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....property in the status of an individual through its five managers for all the four years. For the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, the Tribunal took the view that the AAC had erred in not upholding the assessments as made by the WTO and in giving the direction that they should be made on the individual managers of the trust in respect of their shares in the total wealth of the trust. Then we come to the reference for the years 1966-67 to 1974-75. For those assessment years the WTO took the view that the assessment to wealth-tax should be made in the hands of the wakif in the status of an individual and not in the hands of the beneficiaries. However, for the assessment year 1967-68, though the assessee's contention was that the asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n is the correctness of the view of the WTO who had invoked the provisions of s. 21(4) of the W.T. Act. Now the question referred must arise out of the order of the Tribunal and since it is obvious that the contention of the Revenue before the Tribunal was that s. 21(1) did not apply to the facts of the present case, but that s. 21(4) applies, the proper question which should have been referred was-whether the assessments under s. 21(1) are justified, because it is the correctness of the view of the Tribunal which is being questioned. It is, therefore, necessary to reframe the question as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessments under s. 21(1) of the Act are justified ? " It is now too late....