POONJABHAI VANMALIDAS Vs. WEALTH TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is assessed to wealth tax as an HUF. The assessment years with which we are concerned in the present proceedings are asst. yrs. 1965 66, 1966 67 and 1967 68, the relevant valuation dates being samvat years 2020, 2021 and 2022, respectively. The petitioner is being assessed to wealth tax and the assessment years are in connection with wealth tax dates. The respondent is the WTO having jurisdiction to assess the petitioner under the WT Act. For the asst. yr. 1965 66, the respondent passed assessment order on 22nd Feb., 1971. The immovable property was ascertained at Rs. 13,10,000 and the net wealth was ascertained at Rs. 9,07,560. For the asst. year 1966 67, the assessment order was passed on 22nd Feb., 1971. The immovable property was ascertained at Rs. 13,01,600 and the net wealth was ascertained at Rs. 8,21,574. For the asst. year 1967 68, the assessment order was passed on 22nd Feb., 1971. The immovable property was taken to be Rs. 13,01,600 and the net wealth was ascertained at Rs. 8,28,474. Notices of demand were issued under S. 30 of the Act for asst. yrs. 1965 66 to 1967 68 and necessary refund orders were issued and adjusted and ultimately the requisite amounts were paid by the petitioner. After adjustment of the refunds of some amounts notices of demand for the balance sum of Rs. 754 for the asst. year 1965 66 was issued and that amount was also paid by the petitioner. Against the assessment orders for these three years 1965 66 to 1967 68, the assessee went in appeal before the AAC who by his order dt. 23rd June, 1971, reduced the net wealth of the petitioner by Rs. 15,000 in each of the three assessment years under appeal before him. By virtue of the appellate orders passed by the AAC, the petitioner became entitled to refund of Rs. 150 in each of the three assessment years and the consequential orders in the light of the orders passed by the AAC were passed by the WTO on 30th March, 1974, allowing a refund of Rs. 150 in each of the three assessment years. Thereafter, three notices were issued by the respondent herein all dt. 15th Jan., 1976, under S. 35 of the WT Act for each of the three assessment years under consideration calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the rectification proposed by him in those notices should not be made and the ground which was mentioned was :

(2.) FOR the purposes of this judgment we will deal with this aspect of limitation because, in our opinion, the matter is capable of being disposed of only on that point.

(3.) UNDER S. 23 provision is made for appeal to the AAC from orders of the WTOs and it was under that section that the AAC exercised these powers. Under Sub S. (4) of S. 23 the AAC may, at the hearing of an appeal, allow an appellant to go into any ground of appeal ; before disposing of an appeal, he may make such further inquiry as he thinks fit or cause further inquiry to be made by the WTO. Under Sub S. (5A), in disposing of an appeal, the AAC may consider and decide any matter arising out of the proceedings in which the order appealed against was passed, notwithstanding that such matter was not raised before the AAC by the appellant. Thus, the powers of the AAC are undoubtedly very wide. But in each case, when dealing with a matter which has been taken in appeal, the question that has to be considered is, what was the point or points out of the numerous points dealt with by the WTO that were processed and dealt with by the AAC. Though the entire assessment is open before the AAC, it is only in respect of points which were touched by the AAC that, it can be said that the AAC's order and the consequential order necessitated by the AAC's order will be the orders that can be subsequently considered for rectification proceeding from the date of those orders. Insofar as the AAC has not dealt with or touched the points which were originally decided by the WTO, it is the date of the original order of assessment by the WTO that will have to be considered.