AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Mulye, J.—This order shall also govern the disposal of M.P. Nos. 1023 of 1983, 1024 of 1983, 1025 of 1983, 1026 of 1983, 1027 of 1983, 1028 of 1983, 1059 of 1983 and 1060 of 1983 as all these petitions arise between the same parties out of a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on a common question of law, which are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of reference application u/s 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, regarding respondent No. 2 for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1977-78.
The facts giving rise to this petition may be stated, in brief, thus: The Wealth-tax Officer, B-Ward, Circle-1, Indore, assessed the wealth of respondent No. 2 u/s 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, by his separate assessment orders passed for different assessment years 1969-70 to 1977-78. The said Wealth-tax Officer has commonly observed in his assessment orders in all the assessment years as under :
"The value of life interest and reversion to corpus in two trusts, namely, Lady Kanchan Bai Trust and Sir Hukumchand Trust, will be included here as a precautionary measure as in the case of Shri Maharaja Bahadursingh (individual). The High Court has held in Income Tax case of the assessee that these belong to the Hindu undivided family but the Department is before the Supreme Court of India. The judgment is awaited."
Accordingly, the learned Wealth-tax Officer computed the net wealth of respondent No. 2 in his assessment orders.
Respondent No. 2 filed nine appeals against the assessment orders of the Wealth-tax Officer relating to the assessment years 1969-70 to 1977-78 before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax, A-Range, Indore, who disposed of all these nine appeals by a common order dated March 10, 1981, on the ground that all the nine appeals involve the common issue of the assessment of the value of life interest and reversion of corpus in two trusts, by name Sir Hukumchand Trust and Lady Kanchan Bai Trust, on protective basis in the individual status of respondent No. 2 and accordingly allowed all these appeals.
The Wealth-tax Officer then preferred appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, which by the impugned order dated August 21, 1982, by a common order, dismissed the same while upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the petitioners, through the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bhopal, filed one consolidated reference application for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1977-78 u/s 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act proposing the following common question of law which arose out of the common order passed by respondent No. 1 ;
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing the exclusion of the value of life interest as reversioner from the assessment of this assessee in his individual capacity ?"
However, respondent No. 1, by the impugned order dated July 20, 1983, rejected the said reference application on the ground that the Revenue should have filed separate reference applications for each of the wealth-tax appeals and not a consolidated application. Hence, this petition.
The respondents have not filed any returns.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as also respondent No. 2, we are of the opinion that all these petitions deserve to be allowed for reasons stated hereinafter. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, according to Rule 7 framed under the Wealth-tax Act, an application under Sub-section (1) of Section 27 requiring the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law has to be filed as stated in Form No. H appended to these Rules. He, therefore, submitted that in accordance with this rule, he had submitted one consolidated application as the Tribunal had disposed of all the appeals by a common order in which a common question of law arises and that too between the same parties. He, therefore, submitted that there is no bar under this rule that a consolidated application for reference to the High Court cannot be filed in such cases. He also submitted that even the prescribed form nowhere mentions that in such cases separate applications have to be filed for separate assessment years. He also urged that the said reference application was filed for the sake of convenience as the facts of the case are identical and a common point was involved in all the nine appeals and, in support of his submission, he placed reliance on a decision in The Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Others, , wherein it has been held that whenever appeals are consolidated and disposed of by a common judgment pertaining to the same case and involving the same question of law arising between the same parties, a single reference application was competent. He also referred to a passage from Kanga & Palkhivala''s Income Tax, vol. I (7th edn.), wherein at page 1149, it has been stated that "only one reference application need be made when the Tribunal passes a consolidated order disposing of the appeals of the assessee and the Department against the Appellate Assistant Commissioner''s order for the same assessment year or a consolidated order disposing of a common point arising in different appeals. But separate reference applications should be made and separate statements of case should be prepared in respect of appeals decided under different tax statutes even if the question of law is similar." He, therefore, submitted that in the absence of any specific rules under the said Wealth-tax Act or there being no such bar u/s 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, one consolidated reference application could be filed in such a case and, consequently, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the reference application on this hypertechnical ground.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 was unable to point out what difference it would have made even if separate applications had been filed by the petitioner especially when the proposed common question of law arose out of all these assessment years and that too between the same parties. He was also unable to point out that any prejudice has been or was likely to be caused to respondent No. 2 in such a case, even though learned counsel also urged that Form No. H in Rule 7 being silent on this point the petitioners ought to have filed separate reference applications. We may also point out that learned counsel for respondent No. 2 also did not dispute this fact that there is no specific provision in the Rules in such a case.
Thus, we are of the opinion that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No. 1, namely, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, has refused to exercise its jurisdiction in rejecting the consolidated reference application on a technical ground that the procedure was not legal. It is also apparent that the said impugned order is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and is also not well-founded as the Tribunal has not given any finding to the effect that the proposed question of law did not arise at all.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that one consolidated reference application was not maintainable in respect of these nine cases, it ought to have been treated as proper and valid in accordance with the prescribed form at least for one assessment year because there was no bar in treating the said reference application for a particular assessment year and deciding the same on merits, especially when a common question of law arose in all these cases between the same parties. Therefore, even on this ground, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
In the result, these petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned order dated July 20, 1983, passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the reference application on a hypertechnical ground is quashed and set aside and respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the said application on merits in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.