CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(1986) 07 MP CK 0004

Ramchandra Gopalji Sugandhi vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 25 July 1986 · Citation: (1987) 63 CTR 174 : (1987) 163 ITR 802

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.K. Verma, J · G.G.Sohani, J
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 379 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

9 paragraphs · 364 words

Sohani, J.—The order in this case will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 380 of 1984, 381 of 1984 and 17 of 1985.

2.

The material facts giving rise to these applications, briefly, are as follows :

The applicant is a Hindu undivided family. The assessee was asked to show cause why action u/s 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), be not taken against the assessee. The assessee showed cause but the Wealth-tax Officer passed orders imposing penalty on the assessee. Aggrieved by those orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Those appeals were allowed. The Revenue thereupon preferred appeals before the Tribunal which allowed the appeals.

3.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the assessee sought a reference, but the application made by the assessee in that behalf was rejected. Hence, the assessee has filed these applications.

4.

Though the assessee has prayed that a number of questions of law, as set out in the application arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal, having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that only the following questions of law, as reframed by us, arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal :

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appeal preferred by the Department before the Tribunal was a valid appeal ?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that though the status of the assessee was described as an individual by the Wealth-tax Officer in the order imposing penalty, the assessee was liable to pay penalty ?

(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that notice u/s 18(2) of the Act to the assessee was valid ?"

5.

We accordingly direct the Tribunal to state the case and to refer the aforesaid questions of law to this court for its opinion. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of these applications.