RUKMINIDEVI JALAN Vs. WEALTH TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality of the order dt. 28th Feb., 1979, passed by the CWT, Central I, Bombay, in exercise of the powers under S. 25(1) of the WT Act, 1957.

(2.) THE facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are as follows: The petitioner is assessed as an individual, both under the IT Act, 1961, as well as the WT Act, 1957, for the last number of years. The petitioner became a partner in Ramkumar Jalan after the death of her husband, the late Gajanand Jalan, in September, 1953. The petitioner filed returns under the WT Act for the asst. yrs. 1957 58 to 1962 63 and in the said wealth tax returns, the petitioner showed her interest in Ramkumar Jalan as a partner. The WTO, while assessing the petitioner under the W.T Act, included a sum of Rs. 26,39,427 in the assets of Ramkumar Jalan, being the amount of disclosed income of the partners of Ramkumar Jalan for the years 1940 to 1946. The WTO also included the interest amount credited by Narayan Hosiery Private Limited in their books of account to the account of Ramchandra Ramkumar on the relevant valuation date. The assessment orders were completed in respect of the assessment years on 18th July, 1975. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, preferred appeals before the AAC. The AAC by an order dt. 2nd July, 1976, allowed the appeals in part. The AAC, however, rejected the contention of the petitioner that the principal amount of Rs. 26,39,427 and interest amount of Rs. 16,96,445 76 were wrongly added by the WTO to the assets of Ramkumar Jalan while computing the petitioner's share in the firm. The AAC, while reaching this conclusion, followed the order of the Tribunal in the case of Tolaram Jalan, another partner of Ramkumar Jalan.

(3.) SHRI Dwarkadas, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, reiterated the same contentions urged before the officer exercising powers under S. 25(1) of the WT Act. It was urged that the amount of Rs. 19,33,841 should not have been included in the wealth of the assessee in the asst. yrs. 1957 58 to 1962 63, as it does not form part of the wealth. The CWT has pointed out that the same contention was advanced before the Tribunal in the case of another partner, that is, Tolaram Jalan, and the Tribunal rejected the contentions by an order dt. 31st May,1976. The Tribunal included that amount in the wealth of that assessee for the asst. yrs. 1957 58 to 1962 63, and the CWT accepted the reasoning and the conclusion recorded by the Tribunal. Shri Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submits, and in my judgment with considerable merit, that it is not permissible to disturb the order of the CWT under S. 25(1) of the WT Act in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.