Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Sampathmal Chordia, Executor to the Estate of Late Neni Kavur Bai

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.—The question referred concerns the correctness of the order of the Tribunal holding that the Commissioner of

Wealth-tax u/s 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, had no jurisdiction to revise the valuation of the property, when that valuation was the subject

matter of an appeal which was filed by the assessee and was pending when the revisional power was exercised. The assessment year is 1984-85.

The revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised in a manner which would result in depriving the appellate authority of the power to examine the

correctness of the order under appeal, when an appeal, has, in fact, been filed in respect of those matters and was pending before the appellate

authority. The Explanation to Section 25(2) in Clause (c) thereof, after its amendment by the Finance Act of 1989 makes this abundantly clear.

That provision sets out that where the order sought to be revised is one passed by the Assessing Officer and had been made the subject-matter of

an appeal, the power of the Commissioner will extend to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal.

The proviso u/s 25(1) of the Wealth-tax Act bars the Commissioner from revising an order unless the time for filing an appeal has expired or the

assessee had waived his right of appeal. It is clear that were an appeal had in fact been filed by the assessee and that appeal had raised the

question concerning which the revisional authority sought to exercise the revisional power, the exercise of such revisional power was barred.

The Tribunal was right in the view it had taken. The question is, therefore, answered, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.