LUCY KOCHUVAREED DECD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter arises under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"). W. T. A. Nos. 1, 3, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of 2003 are filed by the assessee, namely, the late Mrs. Lucy Kochu Vareed, represented by her son, Sri P. V. Jacob. W. T. A. Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 13 are filed by the assessee, namely, Sri P. V. Jacob. THE assessment years concerned in the first batch of cases are 1979-80 to 1984-85, and the assessment years concerned in the second batch of cases are 1980-81 to 1985-86. Though the assessees in both these batch of cases are different (in the sense that the assessee in the first batch of cases is the mother of the appellant in the second batch of cases, who also represents the estate of the deceased mother), the question arising for consideration in all these cases is one and the same, that is, as to whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal while deciding the appeals filed by them was justified in issuing directions which, according to the assessee, are beyond the scope of the appeals.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows. THE appellant in W. T. A. No. 1 of 2003 was the owner of a rubber estate known as Velanikkara Thattil Estate. She has leased out one-third of the said estate to Varkey Jacob and Co., on which the appellant in the second batch of cases was a partner. THE Thattil Estate was acquired by the Government in the year 1970. Possession of the said estate was also taken by the Government in the year 1973. By the acquisition of the said estate, the business of the partnership firm, Varkey Jacob and Co., came to an end. Compensation was awarded both to the owner of the estate and to the lessee. Not being satisfied by the said award passed by the Collector, the appellants have filed application for reference, and the matter was referred to the sub-court. THE sub-court also passed an award granting enhanced compensation and also interest at the rate of four per cent. Aggrieved by the award passed by the sub-court, the State filed appeals before this court. THE appellants also filed cross appeals against the said award before this court. Both set of appeals were disposed of by this court as per judgment dated January 28, 1987.

(3.) SRI N. SRInivasan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the question of refund of taxes paid as per the voluntary returns was not at all a subject matter of the appeal filed before the Tribunal and that the only ground on which the appeals were filed is that the assessments are barred by limitation. The senior counsel further submits that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in such circumstances to go beyond the scope of the appeal and to issue further directions in regard to the consequences of the orders passed by them. The senior counsel also wanted to make submissions on the merits of the direction issued by the Tribunal. He took us to the provisions of Section 24(5) of the Act which gives jurisdiction to the Tribunal to decide the appeals and submits that the direction in the nature specified in paragraph 4 of the appellate order regarding the refund of the tax paid is not contemplated within the said jurisdiction.