COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. APAR LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under section 27-A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ( Act for short) is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench B. Mumbai ( Tribunal for short) dated 8th October, 1999 in I. T. A. No. 44/mum/97 holding that section 23 (1-A) (a) of the Act provides for a right of appeal against an intimation issued under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act so as to object to the amount of net wealth determined under the Act. FACTS

(2.) THE facts, in nut shell, as stated by the appellant are as follows : the assessee filed the return of wealth for the assessment year 1992-93 under protest. According to the assessee, the immovable property being office premises at Maker Chambers III, Nariman Point and land being non-agricultural land at Village Durmal, Nadiad were not chargeable assets under the Act. The office premises had been temporarily let out. The assessee held shares of the co-operative society in which the said office premises were located. The shares held in a co-operative society were not chargeable to tax under the Act. As regards the non-agricultural land, the ownership thereof was in dispute. The suit filed by the assessee against the person in occupation of the said land had been dismissed by the District Court at Nadiad as such the contention was that the land was not includible in its net wealth. A note in support of its claim that the assets were not liable to wealth tax was enclosed along with the return. Without prejudice, the wealth was computed recording due protest at Rs. 27,00,559/- and, wealth tax in the sum of Rs. 54,011/- was paid under protest.

(3.) THE Assessing Officer issued an intimation under section 16 (1) (a) accepting the wealth returned (under protest) without adjudicating the issue on merits. Aggrieved by the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) ( Commissioner (Appeals) for short) who was pleased to dismiss the appeal on two grounds, namely (i) that the assessee was not an aggrieved person since the Assessing Officer had done nothing but merely accepted the return and (ii) an intimation under section 16 (1) (a) (i) could not be said to be an order so as to make the appellate remedy available. It was thus held that the intimation was not appealable. The appeal, therefore, came to be dismissed. The aforesaid order of Commissioner (appeals) was carried in further appeal before the Tribunal at the instance of assessee. The Tribunal vide its order dated 8th October, 1999, was pleased to hold that the appeal in the circumstances was very much maintainable under section 23 (1-A) (a) and allowed the same.