High CourtsDivision Bench(1985) 07 MP CK 0024

Commissioner of Wealth-tax vs Jambu Kumar Singh Kasliwal

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 15 July 1985 · Citation: (1987) 64 CTR 150 : (1987) 166 ITR 623

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.K. Verma, J · P.D. Mulye, J
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Petition No. 275 of 1984

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

19 paragraphs · 344 words
1.

Shri R. C. Mukati, counsel for the applicant, was heard on the question of admission.

2.

This is an application filed by the applicant, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, u/s 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, with a prayer to call upon the Tribunal to send the statement of the case in connection with the following question of law which arises in this case :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Explanation 1 to Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is not retrospective in nature and consequently in excluding the value of jewellery from the net wealth of the assessee ? "

3.

The facts giving rise to this application may be stated in brief thus : the Wealth-tax Officer included the value of the jewellery as follows :

Assessment year

Amount Rs.

1964-55

2,66,125

1965-66

2,15,240

1966-67

2,40,425

1967-68

2,74,100

4.

The assessee went in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who took the view that Explanation 1 to Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act is not retrospective and consequently excluded the value of the jewellery from the taxable wealth of the assessee.

5.

The Department filed an appeal before the Tribunal which upheld the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by relying on the Full Bench decision of this court in Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Tarabai Kanakmal, .

6.

An application filed by the Department for making a reference to this court was rejected. Hence this application.

7.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that against the Full Bench judgment an appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court which is pending and, therefore, the Tribunal in this case should be called upon to send the statement.

8.

However, in our opinion, this by itself is not a valid ground to entertain this application in view of the Full Bench decision referred to above. Consequently, we see no valid ground to entertain this petition and decline to call upon the Tribunal to make a reference as prayed for.