COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. DWARKADAS GHASIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant (CWT, Bhopal) has filed these five applications concerning same assessee under S. 27 (3) of the WT Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') seeking direction to the Tribunal to state the cases and refer the questions, as extracted below, arising out of the order dt. 16th July, 1993, passed in W.T.A. No. 219/Ind/1992 (related to MCC No. 304 of 1994) on rejection of the connected application filed under S. 27(1) of the Act registered as R.A. No. 118/Ind/1993 for asst. yr. 1988- 89 on 18th March, 1994 and common order dt. 16th July, 1993 passed in WTA Nos. 121, 122, 123 & 124/Ind/1993 (related to MCCs No. 303, 305, 309 and 323 of 1994) on rejection of the connected applications filed under S. 27(1) of the Act registered as RA Nos. 114, 115, 116 & 117/Ind/1993 for asst. yrs. 1984-85, 1986-87, 1985-86 and 1987-88 on 18th March, 1994 respectively, for our consideration and opinion : (a) Concerning RA No. 118/Ind/1993

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee deals in coal ask. Its premises were searched on 21st Jan., 1986. During the course of search, certain incriminating documents were found. After scrutiny of these documents, the AO concluded that all the assets, as contained in the documents, belonged to the bigger HUF and there was no partition of such HUF as claimed at the time of filing the return under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme of 1965. He, therefore, clubbed incomes of all the individual members/branches of smaller HUFs and completed the assessments accordingly. In appeals by the assessee, the CIT(A) took the view that it was not open to question the partial partition of the HUF claimed to have been done in 1957 and accepted by the Department as a fact and thus allowed the appeals. The Department then filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in all these cases of aforesaid assessment years took the view in favour of the assessee and against the Department and thus dismissed the appeals. The Department then submitted application under S. 27(1) of the Act. The applications were rejected. Dissatisfied, the Department took recourse of S. 27(3) of the Act.

(3.) THE counsel for the non-applicant has brought to our notice that quantum appeals were decided in favour of the non-applicant/assessee and on dissatisfaction, the Department had filed applications under S. 256(1) of the IT Act. The Tribunal had declined to state the cases and refer the proposed questions. Thereafter, the Department had filed applications under S. 256(2) of the IT Act which were registered in this Court as Misc. Civil Case No. 231 of 1993; Misc. Civil Case No. 229 of 1993; Misc. Civil Case No. 230 of 1993; Misc Civil Case No. 232 of 1993; Misc. Civil Case No. 233 of 1993; Misc. Civil Case No. 351 of 1993; Misc. Civil Case No. 352 of 1953; Misc. Civil Case No. 353 of 1993; Misc. Civil Case No. 354 of 1993; and Misc. Civil Case No. 355 of 1993. Those Misc. Civil Cases were dismissed by this Court on 17th Jan., 1996. [reported as CIT vs. Dwarkdas Ghashiram (2000) 158 CTR (MP) 403]. It is submitted that when the aforesaid applications suffered the fate of dismissal, the applications under S. 27(3) of the Act, concerning cancellation of penalties, are ipso facto rendered insipid.