Disposed

Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Balkrishan Kuldip Kumar (Huf)

Chhattisgarh HC5 Nov 2009WTR/74/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act referred by the Tribunal. The Court held that since the tax effect involved was negligible, below the mandatory monetary limit for references, no need arose to answer the legal question.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of the reference without answering the question of law due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit.

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Chhattisgarh HC (2009)

¶1

iii%iB8JI; 'csisss ^SKili®?lill:';:il'i^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^t@^s'^':''; ^iaijiijili :- ^WcSS^i^ •lla8S ^m.^ .^I^;?T1??"N£^e.:.?wi:'^:»l'';-IS^ :-''^ ^^':;'-,;1,.:;..'.1'-^':,-':': :,^:^.KA.Mo.,l/Nag/95Y^^';:l.,'':/^^ ^isi3% out of l..':^sessmeait^.yeay.;l®8^,^,:^ fl^ fe,l6©/Hag/92,^^^^^^ :.,.^: ,C|€?^Btssia^^--,^^';';"?J,:' •1 -^a^I.P^*''^' ^•"' ;',<BVS^, '/':'..:.,.'1.. •':'.:^; .'"^:.''''::,'.-':'l;-;-'':lf.:^^^^^ -.. :1:''^'1:. .:^'./-:/1;/'''.;,..'."1;^^';'^.•1;':-;... •'.•.'','.••. ^^' BalfcrishaJi Kul4tp ROmaF <H®>), Shilai, = fites^oaderi.t< A.

¶2

¶3

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHARTTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Coram:Hon'bteShriDhirendraMish^ Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ

¶6

WTR No.74/1995

¶7

Applicant Commissioner of Weatth Tax,
Jabalpur (CG)
Versys
Respondent Balkrishan Kuldip Kumar (HUF),
Bhilai.

¶8

Reference under Section 27 (1) ofWealth Tax Act 19"%

¶9

Present: Shri S.R. Rao, counset'forthe apptteant

¶10

OralOrder ^yf^ke^ (Passed on 6m of QctQber, 2009)

¶11

Per Dhirendra Mishra, J:-

¶12

Shri S. Rajeshwar Rao, counset for the applicant

¶13

¶14

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal'), Nagpur has made this reference under Section27 (1) oftheWealth Tax Act (for short the tAct)) at the instance of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Jabalpur and the Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal in WTA/160/Nag/92 fop. our opinion:-

¶15

(Whether on the facts and in the ciroumstances of the case, the sum of Rs.3,78,182/- being advance tax paid in excess by the assessee constitutes an asset within the meaning of Section 2 (e) ofthe Wealth Tax Act, 1975?"

¶16

(2) Briefly stated, the facts of the case as narrated in paragraph-3 of the statement of the case are that the assessee filed the return of its wealth declaring taxable wealth of Rs,46,66,600/-. While compteting the assessment, the Weatth Tax Officer added a sum of Rs.3,78,182/representing income tax refund due as an asset of the assessee and accordingly, determined the total weatth at Rs. 52,44,800/-. The assessee preferred^{appealbeforetheCommissioner,WealthTax} (Appeals).^The Commissioner confirmed the finctings of the Assessing Offioer. The assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal on this issue. The Tribuna! vide its order dated 18.10.1994, accepted the assessee's contention and deleted the amount of Rs.3,78,182/-. However, this reference has been made at the instance ofthe Revenue.

¶17

^OA^d-- ^

¶18

-5-

¶19

(3) Before entering into the merits of the case, Shri S. Rajeshwara Rao, learned counsel for the applicant Tairly submits that the totat tax effect involvedin this reference is only Rs.9,347/- which is less than the minimum monetary limit of Rs.50,000/" fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short the Board'), for fiting appeal/reference before the High Court vide its circular No.1903 dated 28.10.1992. He further submits that no exceptions as enumerated in Instruction No.1903 exist in the present case for relaxing the minimum monetary limit for the purposes of filing reference before the High Court.

¶20

(4) In view of the submissions made, considering the negligible tax effect involved in this matter and also considering the Board's binding instructions, we do not deem it necessary to answer the question of law referred to us by the Tribunal.

¶21

(5) Accordingly, the reference is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

¶22

Sd/Dhirendra Mishra Judge

¶23

Sd/R.N. Chandrakar Judge

Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Balkrishan Kuldip Kumar (Huf)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Balkrishan Kuldip Kumar (Huf)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Bindu Gurjar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Parsadi Ram Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh and 4 Others Vs Geetanjali Constructions (Colonizer Developer and Builder) and 2 Others

Smt. Kaushalya Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Lochan Prasad Vs Anil Thorani

Lekh Ram Mohalia Vs State of C.G. and Ors.