COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX Vs. RAVI MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi, has referred the following question of law under Section 27(1) of the Wealth -tax Act, 1957, for the opinion of this Court: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessment made by the Wealth -tax Officer at Agra was to be annulled on the ground that he had no legal jurisdiction over the matter as there was no valid transfer of the case ?

(2.) THE reference relates to the assessment year 1978 -79.

(3.) WE have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Revenue and have perused the orders passed by the Wealth -tax Officer as also the Appellate Commissioner of Income -tax, Agra. At the outset it may be stated that the Tribunal in its order has simply followed its order for the earlier assessment year 1977 -78 wherein the following observation was made: 6. If the order of the Wealth -tax Officer, Agra, goes by itself it does not show that the assessee had come and taken objection to his jurisdiction to make the assessment. So on the face of it, there is nothing illegal therein. However, we agree with the conclusion of the Commissioner of Wealth -tax, the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Then the automatic result of this opportunity of being heard would be that the assessee's objection filed in this behalf would have to be considered. As soon as one were to consider that one would certainly come to the conclusion that the Wealth -tax Officer at Agra had improperly assumed jurisdiction in the matter. The proper course for the Commissioner of Wealth -tax in these circumstances was to quash the order of the Wealth -tax Officer and direct him to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ultimately, the Wealth -tax Officer would come to the conclusion that the file had not been properly transferred to him. So he would have either to get regular orders of transfer passed in the matter, alternatively, the proper course for him was to return the file to the Wealth -tax Officer at New Delhi for such action as the latter thought fit. Therefore, without going into other technicalities of the matter and to save from unnecessary harassment and inconvenience to the parties, we are of the opinion that the same should be done now. Accordingly, we modify the order of the Commissioner of Wealth -tax to the extent that while the assessment in question shall stand annulled, the Wealth -tax Officer at Agra is further directed to return the file to the Wealth -tax Officer, Delhi, where the return was originally filed, for further proceedings according to law. Both the appeal and the cross -objection are partly allowed for statistical purpose as above. Thus the assessment was annulled with certain directions. Both the parties have accepted before us that the facts in this year continue to be the same and it is the same circumstances which have been considered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In view of this, we uphold the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner annulling the assessment with similar directions as given in the assessment year 1977 -78.