1977 (7) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ls, the common grievance of the Revenue is that the AAC has been in error in accepting the respondent's appeal and assigning him the status of HUF as claimed by him in the returns filed as against the status of individual taken by the WTO. 2. The respondent filed his wealth-tax returns in the status of HUF as follows: Assessment year Amount 1970-71 99,100 1971-72 94,600 1972-73 1,37,600 1973-74 1,37,488 1974-75 2,74,700 The WTO did not dispute the returns as such and framing assessments under s. 16(3) accepted the returns by observing that valuer's certificates had been filed and after discussion, the total net wealth declared was accepted for all the years. The WTO, however, changed the status from....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....relied on a Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Ridhkaran (1972) 84 ITR 705 (Raj). Another contention raised by the respondent before the AAC was that the WTO not having had given any notice under s. 16(2) of the WT Act could not frame assessments under s. 16(3) and, therefore, all the assessments were vitiated and bad. The AAC apparently accepted the first two contentions of the assessee and allowing the assessee's appeal held the respondent to be assessable in the status of HUF. 4. For the Revenue, Miss R.K. Chahal submitted that the case apparently was covered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment in Pritam Singh's case and accepted that after the said judgment as far as Punjab & Haryana States are concerned, Cu....