DHARMENDRA PRASAD SINGH VS COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX
1991 P T D 718
[Allahabad High Court (India)]
Before Om Prakash and R.K Gulati, JJ
DHARMENDRA PRASAD SINGH
versus
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX
Wealth-tax Application No.12 of 1988, decided on 22/12/1988.
Wealth tax---
---- Reference--Questions whether Tribunal rightly interpreted section 7 (4) of Indian Wealth-tax Act, 1957 and sustained addition of rupees 1 lakh; whether rejection of claim for deduction of liability under Balrampur Tenantry War Loan is correct and whether Tribunal's reversal of the findings of Settlement Commission for earlier years is correct are questions of law fit to be referred- Indian Wealth-tax Act, 1957, S.27 (3):
Held, that (i) whether the Tribunal rightly interpreted the provisions of section 7 (4) of the Indian Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and was right in sustaining the addition of rupees one lakh; (ii) whether the Tribunal was correct in law in rejecting the claim for deduction of the liability under Balrampur Tenantry War Loan; and (iii) whether the Tribunal's reversal of the findings of the Settlement Commission for earlier years was sustainable, were questions of law fit to be referred to the High Court.
Rajendra for the Assessee.
JUDGMENT
Upon hearing the parties, we are of the view the questions Nos.3, 4 and 5 are questions of law but question No.3 requires to be reframed. We, therefore, reframe question No.3 and direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following questions for the opinion of this Court:
"(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the ~xi the Tribunal rightly interpreted the provisions of section 7 (4) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and was right in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,00,000?
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in rejecting the claim of the assessee for deduction of the liability under Balrampur Tenantry War Loan?
(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances d the case and especially in the absence of any additional evidence proklu6'cd by the Department, the Tribunal's reversal of the findings of the Settlement Commission for earlier years in respect of ground No.1 is sustainable in, law?"
The application is partly allowed.
Z.S./716/T Order accordingly.