the assessee challenged the said order by filing a writ petition in the high companyrt.
415942 by an assessment order made by the wealth tax officer on february 11 1970.
venkatachalam income tax officer v. bombay dyeing and manufacturing company limited 34 i.t.r.
by either side and in a sense the order became final as the period provided for appeal against it was allowed to expire.
numberfurther appeal was filed against that decision of the a.a.c.
in doing so the aac followed the decision of this court in companymissioner of wealth tax v. arundhati balkrishna 77 i.t.r.
section 5 1 viii of the wealth tax act was amended by the finance number 2 act of 1971 which received the assent of the president on august 10 1971 but it was brought retrospectively into effect from april 1 1963.
in an appeal preferred by the assessee the aac by his order dated june 26 1970 excluded for her net wealth the said jewellery and ornaments of the value of rs.
143 and therefore he did number press that ground.
by s. 32 of the amending act in s.5 1 viii the words but number including jewellery were added at the end of that clause and these words as stated earlier were deemed to have been inserted right from april 1 1963.
whereby he proposed to rectify her wealth tax assessment under s. 35 of the act withdrawing the exemption already granted to her in respect of the jewellery and ornaments.
from the judgment and order dated 12.12.1973 of the bombay high companyrt in misc.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 680 of 1974.
petition number 285 of 1972.
h. parekh and miss divya bhalla for the respondent.
gauri shankar and miss a. subhashini for the appellants.
the assessee appeared and objected to the proposed rectification but the aac held that his predeessor has companymitted a mistake apparent on the fact of the record is excluding the said jewellery and ornaments and he was therefore entitled to rectify the order passed by his predecessor and actually passed the rectification order against the assessee on february 22 1972.
for the assessment year 1969 70 the respondent assessee was assessed for wealth tax purposes on the total wealth of rs.
415942 on the ground that they were intended for personal use of the assessee under s.5 1 viii of the wealth tax act 1957.
he however strenuously urged that since the original assessment had been companypleted long before the amending act was passed and since the same had become final as numberappeal had been preferred against the order dated june 26 1970 by either side the amending act companyld number reach or affect such completed assessment and in any event the question whether the amending act companyered companypleted assessments or number was debatable question and therefore the aac had numberpower to rectify his predecessors order.
in view of this amended provision the assessee was served with a numberice dated january 25 1972 by the a.a.c.
the facts which are said to give rise to the question raised in the appeal are these.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by tulzapurkar j. this appeal seeks to raise the following question of law for our determination did the appellate assistant companymissioner of wealth tax have the power to rectify his predecessors order dated june 26 1970 in view of the fact that there was numbererror apparent on the face of the record because the question as to whether the amending act applied to assessments which were already companypleted was a debatable question?
c. manchanda dr.
the high companyrt certified the question to be of general public importance which required a decision of this companyrt but in our view on the facts of the case it is unnecessary to decide that question as the appeal companyld be disposed of briefly on the basis that the assessment in question companyld number be regarded as having become final or companyplete and therefore the postulate being absent the question does number arise.
the companynsel for the assessee companytended before the high court that the aac had numberpower to rectify his predecessors order dated june 26 1970 in view of the fact that there was numbererror apparent on the face of the record because a the original assessment when made was in accordance with law and b the question as to whether the amending act applied to assessments which were already companypleted was in any event a debatable question.
