High Court Of Delhi
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. Dr. S.D. Suri
Section WT 19A
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J.
WT Ref. Nos. 168 & 169 of 1983
29th November, 2000
R.C. Pandey with Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, for the Revenue : None, for the Assessee
ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. :
Since the questions referred are identical in both the references, our judgment will govern both of them.
2. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A (in short “the Tribunal”), under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 (in short “the Act”), for the opinion of this Court : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in annulling the assessments as the same were not made in accordance with laws as provided under section 19A read with s. 3 of the WT Act, 1957 ?”
3. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessee.
4. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the factual position would go to show that some of the legal representatives of the deceased assessee were served with notice and merely because all of them have not been served, it was held by the Tribunal that the WTO lacked jurisdiction in assessing the estate of the deceased. A similar issue under s. 159(2) of the IT Act, 1961, came up for consideration of the apex Court in CIT vs. Jai Prakash Singh (1996) 132 CTR (SC) 22 : (1996) 219 ITR 737 (SC) : TC 44R.313. In that case it was held that in such cases the action was violable and not void. In view of the decision of the apex Court, we answer the question referred in the matter has to be reconsidered by the WTO in the light of the directions given by the first appellate authority.
The references are disposed of accordingly.
[Citation : 249 ITR 331]