Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs S.D. Suri

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.—Since the questions referred are identical in both the references, our judgment will govern both of them.

At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A (in short "the Tribunal"), u/s 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (in short "the Act"), for the opinion of this court :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in annulling the assessments as the same were not made in accordance with law as provided u/s 19A read with Section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?"

Heard learned counsel for the Revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessee.

Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the factual position would go to show that some of the legal representatives of the deceased assessed were served with notice and merely because all of them have not been served, it was held by the Tribunal that the Wealth-tax Officer lacked jurisdiction in assessing the estate of the deceased. A similar issue u/s 159(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, came up for consideration of the apex court in CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh [1996] 219 ITR 757. In that case it was held that in such cases the action was voidable and not void. In view of the decision of the apex court, we answer the question referred in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. In essence the matter has to be reconsidered by the Wealth-tax Officer in the light of the directions given by the first appellate authority.

The references are disposed of accordingly.