COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. SUMANKUMAR ISHWARLAL PAREKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following question under Section 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957 (the Act), at the instance of the CWT, Rajkot : Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in setting aside the order made by -the CWT under Section 25(2) of the WT Act ?

(2.) THE assessment year is 1983 -84 and the valuation date is Asovad Amas of Samvant Year 2038. The assessee filed return of wealth on 28th Sept., 1983, and was assessed on net wealth of Rs. 1,99,540 under Section 16(1) of the Act. The CWT initiated action under Section 25(2) of the Act for the reasons stated in the notice issued on 27th March, 1987. Although the show -cause notice is not available on record, from the order of the CWT it appears that it was in context of gold ornaments declared by the wife of the assessee, Smt. Arunaben, in the return of wealth filed by her for asst. yr. 1983 -84. According to the CWT, the explanation of the assessee that gold ornaments belong to the wife of the assessee and were her Stridhan was not acceptable because Smt. Arunaben had filed the return of wealth on 29th Sept., 1983, showing gold ornaments weighing 656 gms. and explaining the acquisition of the ornaments as received at the time of her marriage in 1974. According to the CWT, Smt. Arunaben had no source of income and father of the assessee had not shown any expenses at the time of marriage of Arunaben. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that the AO had not made proper inquiries regarding the extent and ownership of gold ornaments and source of acquisition to establish whether the ornaments belong to the wife or the husband. He, therefore, set aside the assessment holding that the same was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

(3.) IT appears from the order of the Tribunal that simultaneously similar action was initiated under Section 263 of the IT Act against which the appeals were heard by the Tribunal and the Tribunal had held that CIT could not have taken action under Section 263 of the IT Act because the record of some other assessee would not form the record of the assessee concerned, no matter how closely they were related to the assessee.