IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WEALTH TAX APPEAL NOS.1 OF 2017 AND 23 OF 2017 AND 24-25 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
SMT. INDRAKSHI DEVI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, WIFE OF R. RAJACHANDRA, NO.241, 15TH MAIN, R.M.V. EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 080.
(BY SRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE WEALTH TAX OFFICER WARD - 11(1), BENGALURU.
(BY SRI E. I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT THESE WEALTH TAX APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 27-A OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT 1957, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 20.01.2016 PASSED IN WTA NO.1 TO 4(B)/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1979-1980 TO 1983-1984 IN COMMON ORDER DATED 20.01.2016 IN WTA NO.1 TO 6(B)/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1979-1980 TO 1987-1988 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DATED 20.01.2016 BEARING IN WTA NO.1 TO 4(B)/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1979-1980 TO 1983-
1984 IN COMMON ORDER DATED 20.01.2016 IN WTA NO.
1 TO 6(B)/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1979-1980 TO 1987-1988.
***** THESE WEALTH TAX APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, (Appeals), appeals were filed before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal. The contention of the assessee was that 1/14th value of HUF is already assessed in the hands of her brother in the capacity of kartha of bigger HUF and therefore it cannot be reassessed in the hands of the assessee. Further, that the value of 1/7th of the minor HUF should have adopted Rs.2,92,857/- as against Rs.7,14,286/-. On considering the contentions of the assessee, the Tribunal was of the view that in order to meet the ends of justice, the matter be re-considered by the Assessing Officer after giving an opportunity to the assessee. Aggrieved by the same, the instant appeals are filed.
2. On considering the contentions, we do not find any substantial question of law that arises for consideration. The Tribunal has thought it fit to grant an opportunity to the assessee to make out her case. Therefore, a fresh opportunity has been granted. The same does not affect any legal rights of the assessee or the interest of the revenue. Since an adequate opportunity has been granted to the assessee and the revenue, we do not find any substantial question of law that arises for consideration. In view of absence of any substantial question of law, the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE rsk/-