COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. M SEETHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application filed u/s.27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for short "the Act", the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following question of law for the opinion of this Court.

(2.) The question arises in the following circumstances:- The original assessment of the assessee for the year 1983-84 was completed by determining the value of the shares under Rule 1-D of the Wealth-tax Rules. The value of the shares determined was at the rate of Rs.693-75 per share. The order of assessment was passed on December 21,1987. Purporting to exercise jurisdiction under Section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, The Wealth-tax Officer corrected the value of shares from Rs.693-75 to Rs.754-92, by order dated February 29, 1988. Before the said order was passed, the Wealth-tax Officer issued a notice to the assessee under Section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act. In response to the notice the assessee took the plea that in the earlier assessment year the Wealth-tax Officer held that the correct value of the share was Rs.693-75, therefore there is no mistake apparent from the record to be corrected under Section 35 of the Act. However, over-ruling the objection raised by the assessee, the Wealth Tax Officer passed the order referred to above. On appeal to the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), the said order of the Wealth-tax Officer was confirmed. On further appeal to the Tribunal, it was held that there was no mistake apparent from the record to justify the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act. The Tribunal thus allowed the appeal on January 4,1990 and also rejected the application of the Revenue to refer the above said question. Hence the present application.

(3.) Sri Habeeb Ansari, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue, strenuously contends that there is a question of law in this case and therefore the Tribunal ought to have referred the same for opinion of this Court. Sri D.Manmohan, the learned Counsel appearing for the assessee, however, resists this submission and argues that on the day when the order was passed by the Wealth-tax Officer the Tribunal's judgment, which was binding on the Wealth-tax Officer, was in exi'stance, which justified the original assessment, therefore, there was no basis to invoke Section 35 of the Act.