High CourtsDivision Bench(1989) 02 MAD CK 0033

Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs G. Ramaswamy and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 21 February 1989 · Citation: (1990) 185 ITR 286

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Ratnam, J · Bhakthavatsalam, J
CASE NUMBER
Tax Case Petition No''s. 210 to 212 of 1987

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 299 words

Ratnam, J.—u/s 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following common question of

law for the opinion of this court :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the amendment provisions of

section 20A of the Wealth-tax Act would not be applicable to the partitions made on February 9, 1979, in relation to the assessment year 1979-

80?

2.

The question is whether the amended provisions of section 20A of the Wealth-tax Act would be applicable in respect of the partition dated

February 9, 1979, in relation to the assessment year 1979-80. Though in the earlier portion of section 20A of the Wealth-tax Act, partial

partitions, which have taken place after December 31, 1978, would also be included, yet, by reason of the Circular of the Central Board of Direct

Taxes No. 281 of 1980 (See [1981] 131 ITR 4, it had been clarified that even though section 20A of the Wealth-tax Act had come into force

with effect from April 1, 1980, the provisions thereof would be applicable in relation to the assessment year 1980-81 and the subsequent years

and not to the earlier assessment years. We are concerned in these cases with the assessment years 1979-80 and even according to the Circular of

the Board referred to earlier, the amended provisions of section 20A cannot be made applicable to the assessees in respect of the assessment year

1979-80. In that view, the Tribunal was quite right in declining to refer the question of law. We are also of the view that no referable question of

law arises for consideration out of the order of the Tribunal. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.