K. Sen, B. P. Maheshwari and N. R. Kaitan, for the appellant in both the appeals .
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 17, 1966 of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Andhra.
Company has filed these appeals under Art.
136 of the Constitution.
Mitra, G. Das, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for the respondent in both the appeals .
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. In proceedings for determination of wealth tax for the assesment years 1957 58 and 1958 59 the appellant Com pany claimed depreciation allowance on plant, building and machinery at the rates prescribed under the Income Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Pradesh in J. No.
We do number ordinarily encourage an aggrieved party to appeal directly to this Court against the order of a Tribunal exercising judicial functions under a taxing statute, and thereby to bypass the numbermal procedure of appeal and reference to the High Court, but in the present case, it appears to us that a question of principle of great importance arises.
2269 and 2270 of 1966.
In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax companyfirmed the order passed by the Wealth Tax Officer.
3 4 and 3 5 of 1959 60.
Against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner appeals lay to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, but the Company preferred revision applications before the Commissioner.
The Wealth Tax Officer adopted the method prescribed by s. 7 sub s. 2 of the Wealth Tax Act and admitted the value of the assets as shown in the certified balance sheets on the respective valuation dates.
Against the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax rejecting the applications, the.
The, Company then moved revision applications before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax under S. 25 of the Wealth Tax Act.
