AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Balia, J.—Heard learned counsels for the parties. This application is u/s 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (''the Act'') for directing the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to submit the statement of case and refer the following question of law said to be arising out of its appellate order in WTA No. 275 (Jp.) of 1991 dated 27-6-1995, for the assessment year 1983-84:
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in allowing the claim of the tax liabilities of earlier years u/s 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, when though the assessee was not disputing the liability, the same was not paid within the statutory period?
The Tribunal by a common order in WTA Nos. 274 to 277 (Jp.) of 1991 relating to the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1987-88 has allowed the claim of the assessee to deduct the arrears of tax liabilities in computing the net wealth as on the valuation date for all the assessment years.
Aggrieved with that order, the CWT has moved a separate application for making a reference of the aforesaid question for all the assessment years u/s 27(2) of the Act of 1957 before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal by a common order, dated 31-1-1997 had rejected the application that no referable question of law arises out of the Tribunal''s order. Hence, this application u/s 27(3) of the Act of 1957 for holding the order passed by the Tribunal in R.A. No. 288 (Jp.) of 1995 to be erroneous and directing the Tribunal to make a reference of the following question to this Court for its opinion:
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in allowing the claim of the tax liabilities of earlier years u/s 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 when though the assessee was not disputing the liability, the same was not paid within the statutory period and remains outstanding as on valuation date?
The learned counsel for the respondent at the very outset pointed out that three reference applications u/s 27(3) arising out of the very same order relating to the assessment years 1981-82, 1984-85 and 1987-88 raising identical question has been dismissed by this Court on 24-9-1999. A copy of the order passed by the Division Bench in D.B. WT Ref. Case Nos. 3 of 1998, 13 of 1998 and 12 of 1998 was brought to the notice of the Court.
The learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute this fact, however, he contends that the matter requires reconsideration and be referred to a larger Bench. We are not inclined to accept this contention.
Following the aforesaid decision, this application is also rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.