TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (4) TMI 81
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iginal assessments framed on 17th March 1979, the WTO had failed to levy additional wealth tax on urban immovable properties owned by the assessee, as was required of him under cl. (c) of Paragraph A of Part I of the Schedule of the Act. He, therefore, initiated the proceedings under s. 32 of the Act, and issued notices on the assessee to show cause why orders under s. 35 of the Act, should not be passed with a view to levy additional wealth tax on the urban immovable properties owned by it. For the first two years under appeal, the assessee did not reply to the show cause notices and for the third year under appeal, the assessee objected to the levy of additional wealth tax on the ground that if the debt of Rs. 2,86,066 taken into consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The submissions made before the AAC could be gathered from para 3 of his order under appeal which reads as under: "3 Shri Raiyani, Advocate submitted that urban tax is a separate tax leviable on the value of urban immovable properties and of the same was not levied at the time of the assessment, the assessment itself is time barred because according to the Supreme Court decision it has been held that no only the total income/wealth should be computed within the time limit prescribed by the Acts but also the tax should be computed. To support this contention, he relied upon the comments of Chaturvedi & Pithisaria 2nd edition Volume III, Page No. 2812. It was further submitted that this point whether additional wealth tax is part of the ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts of the case about which there are no disputes, the WTO has jurisdiction under s. 35 of the Act to rectify the calculation of the tax and levy additional wealth tax on the value of urban immovable properties. The orders passed by the WTO under s. 35 of the WT Act in these three assessment years are, therefore, confirmed." 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the AAC, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee once again reiterated the submissions which were made before the AAC and urged that the AAC ought to have cancelled the orders passed by the WTO under s. 35 of the Act. According to the ld. counsel for the assessee, failure to apply the provisions for levying the additional wealth ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roperty was a tax different from the wealth-tax chargeable under s. 3 of the Act. Finally, he submitted that since the WTO is debarred from passing orders with a view to levy additional wealth-tax on the urban immovable property on account of time limitation prescribed under the Act, he cannot pass order under s. 35 of the Act, in the manner he did. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. British India Corporation (1979) 9 CTR (All) 152 : (1979) 117 ITR 651 (All) and of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishwanti Punjabi (1981) 23 CTR (Cal) 255 : (1983) 139 ITR 703 (Cal). He therefore, urged that the orders passed by the WTO under s. 35 of the Act, should be quashe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ealth-tax is to be levied in respect of the urban immovable property. 8. On the plain reading of cl. (c) above, it cannot be disputed that what is attempted to charge is additional wealth-tax only and no other tax as was canvassed on behalf of the assessee. While raising the demand on the completion of the assessments, the WTO forgot to levy additional wealth-tax on the urban immovable properties owned by the assessee. This apparent mistake crept in the original assessments was sought to be cured by passing orders under s. 35 of the Act, which according to us is quite in order. In our view the decision in the case of Nandlal Mangaram Pamnani & Others would not help the assessee as the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the asst. yr. 1967-68 was served on the assessee on 15th July 1967. On the application of the assessee, the time for filing the return was finally extended upto 15th Nov., 1967. The assessee filed the return only on 23rd Dec., 1967. The ITO complete the assessment on 26th May, 1969. However, he did not charge interest under s. 139 of the Act for late submission of the return. Later, the ITO rectified the order under s. 154 and levied penal interest of Rs. 2,610. On appeal, the AAC accepted the contention of the assessee that the ITO must be deemed to have exercised his decision in favour of the assessee in not charging penal interest in the original assessment order and cancelled the ITO's order passed under s. 154. In further appeal, ....