COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX BANGALORE Vs. VASUDEO V DEMPO:SUDIN PANDURANG TIMBLO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals filed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax against the assessee in appeals of 1980 and wife of the assessee in appeals of 1990 are as follows. They were governed by the Portuguese Civil Code. They were married according to custom, without having any ante-nuptial agreement to keep the property separately. For assessment years 1971-72 to 1973-74 the wealth tax officer calculated value of the moveable properties consisting mostly of shares in limited companies, deposits in bank and loan to company of thehusband as belonging to the body of individuals comprising of the husband and wife. He then worked out the net wealth of the communion by deducting from it Rs. 1,50,000. 00 under Section 5 (1 (xxitt) read with Section 5 (1-A) of the Wealth Tax Act. After allowing the exemption and deducting the liabilities of the communion the net wealth of the communion was arrived and fifty per cent of it was determined as net wealth of the husband. The order was maintained in appeal. The tribunal allowed the appeals of assessee against which the department moved an application under Section 27 (1 of the Act. The reference was heard and decided by the High court of Bombay by answering the question against the department and in favour of assessee. Against this order the department did not move any application under Section 27 (3 but approached this court under Article 136 as the High court had relied on a decision of Bombay High court in which certificate of fitness to appeal had been granted and the appeal was pending in this court. The special leave petition was allowed and leave was granted by this court after hearing learned counsel for parties. These are Appeal Nos. 1596-1598 of 1980.

(2.) In the other set of appeals the Wealth Tax Officer passed assessment orders for assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 against wife in 1973. But by the time the appeals came up for hearing before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the judgment of the High court in the case of the husband had been pronounced. Consequently the appellate authority allowed the appeals. The order was maintained by the tribunal. The applications filed under Section 27 (1 before the tribunal and Section 27 (3 before the High court were rejected. The appellant, therefore, approached this court under Article 136 in which notice was issued as similar matter was pending.

(3.) All these appeals are being disposed of by this common order.