High CourtsDivision Bench(1986) 08 MP CK 0022

Commissioner of Wealth-tax vs R.S. Seth Ghisalal Modi Family Trust

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 29 August 1986 · Citation: (1987) 61 CTR 102 : (1988) 169 ITR 530

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.K. Verma, J · P.D. Mulye, J
CASE NUMBER
M.C.C. No. 63 of 1986

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

5 paragraphs · 259 words
1.

Shri R.C. Mukati, counsel for the petitioner, heard on admission.

2.

The applicant, who is the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bhopal, has filed this review petition against an order dated July 16, 1985, passed in CWT v. R.S. Seth Ghisalal Modi Family Trust (M. C. C. No. 312 of 1984 : See Appendix on page 531 infra) whereby the application filed by the petitioner u/s 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was dismissed in motion hearing by declining to call upon the Tribunal to make a reference as prayed for therein.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision in K. Ahamad Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, , which is a Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court, submitted that this court under its inherent powers can review the said order as, according to the learned counsel, this court has wrongly relied on the decision in Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Tarabai Kanakmal, which is a Full Bench decision of this court.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that as this authority has been wrongly applied while deciding that case, this court should review its earlier order. However, we are unable to agree with this submission as the authority of the Kerala High Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable and even assuming, as was submitted, that we have referred to a wrong decision, in our opinion, that by itself is not a valid ground to review the order passed earlier.

5.

The application is, therefore, dismissed summarily.