COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. SABAVALLA J S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference is made at the instance of the Revenue. The question raised is this:

(2.) THE answer to be given to the question is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in J. M. Bhatia, AAC vs. J. M. Shah (1985) 156 ITR 474. Having regard to that judgment, the question posed to us must be answered in favour of the Revenue.

(3.) WE will assume that this point was urged before the Tribunal. We, however, do not find the point referred to us. The only point in the question that is referred is whether the WTO was competent to rectify the assessment of the assessee to bring to tax the value of jewellery in the light of the retrospective effect given to the amendment to S. 5(1)(viii) of the WT Act, 1957. We cannot, therefore, consider the point urged by Mr. Dalvi before us.