COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. NARESH CHAND BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original assessment in respect of asst. yr. 1964-65 of the opposite party under the WT Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was completed on 23rd Feb., 1967. The opposite party had for the said year, submitted his return on 19th May, 1965. Subsequently a notice was issued by the WTO under S. 17 of the WT Act to the opposite party for re-opening the assessment on the ground that he had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of his net wealth inasmuch as the amount of additional compensation in respect of acquisition of Tipra Estate, Dehradun, together with interest thereon had been disclosed in the return. The opposite party, on the receipt of the said notice, appeared and showed cause. However, the WTO passed afresh order of assessment on 28th March, 1979. Aggrieved by that order the opposite party preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) Allahabad. The appeal was allowed and the assessment was set aside. The aforesaid order was challenged by the Revenue in appeal before the Tribunal (Allahabad Bench), (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). By its order dt. 25th Nov., 1982 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. It pointed out that in Part IV of its original return the assessee had made a disclosure to the following effect :

(2.) THE Tribunal also pointed out that even though by an award given by the Civil Judge on 30th Sept., 1964 the opposite party had been found to be entitled to additional compensation, an appeal against the award of the Civil Judge had been filed by the Government which was pending on 19th May, 1965 when the opposite party had filed his return. The Tribunal took the view the even though the proposition that interest income accrued in each year was indisputable it was not possible to hold that the amount of additional compensation and interest payable thereon was ascertainable on 19th May, 1965. As already seen, emphasis was also placed by the Tribunal on the circumstance that the opposite party had in Part IV of the return specifically mentioned that the amount receivable for the acquisition of Tipra Estate, Dehradun, was not ascertainable. In this view of the matter the Tribunal held that it could not be said that the opposite party had not truly and fully disclosed particulars of the net wealth in his return filed on 19th May, 1965. An application was thereafter made by the CWT under S. 27(1) of the act for drawing up a statement of the case and refer the following questions to this Court for its opinion.