NASEER ZACKERIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main issue involved in all these cases preferred by the partners of a firm is rather the same, i.e. whether the rejection of their claim for' interest on refund of the tax paid under the Wealth Tax Act, stating that the tax paid was not in response to any 'demand' raised, but by way of self-assessment, is justified or not. Since the sequence of events in all the three cases is almost similar, but for the name of the parties and difference in respect of the assessment year concerned, it will be enough, if reference is made to the facts, figures, exhibits and parties as arrayed in W.P. (C) No. 1732 of 2008, more so, when the issue involved is purely a 'question of law'.

(2.) The petitioner is a partner of the firm by name M/s Abad Fisheries and also a partner of another establishment by name M/s Abad Enterprises. In respect of the assessment year 1991-92, return was filed under the Wealth Tax Act on 30.10.1991, declaring the net wealth of Rs. 1,46,43,300/-. While filing the said return, the income of the firm was given, as estimated, since the accounts of the firm were not finalized. But, subsequently, a revised return was filed on 22.03.1992, declaring the net wealth as Rs. 87,88,200/- based on the actual facts and figures. According to the petitioner/assessee, the assessee's share in purchase tax paid by the other concern was liable to be excluded, more so, since the concerned Tribunal had already held in the assessee's own case, that the purchase tax was an admissible liability. However, since the Department had already sought for a 'reference' against the said order passed by the Tribunal, the Assessing Authority ignored the revised return and finalized the assessment based on the entries as given in the original return, taking in the purchase tax element as well, vide Ext. P1.

(3.) Being aggrieved of Ext. P1 assessment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority (Commissioner), who accepted the case of the assessee and allowed the appeal. The said order in appeal was challenged from the part of the Revenue, by approaching the second appellate authority (appellate Tribunal), who reversed the decision of the first appellate authority. Met with the situation, the petitioner/assessee filed an appeal before this Court, when orders passed by the lower authorities were set aside and the Assessing Officer/second respondent was directed to 're-do' the assessment in accordance with law, in view of the observations therein. It was accordingly that the Assessing Officer passed Ext. P2 order, more or less following Ext. P1 original assessment order. But, on appeal preferred by the assessee, the appellate authority clearly found that the Assessing Authority had gone wrong and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to allow the proportionate liability of the partner for purchase tax in the computation of net wealth. Pursuant to the said appellate order, the matter was again considered by the second respondent/assessing officer, who passed Ext. P3 assessment order on 11.11.2005, whereby it was held that, the tax paid by the petitioner was in excess, ordering consequential refund.