The issue before the High Court was whether the order passed by the ACWT dated 30/06/2008, is barred by limitation being made beyond period of one year as required u/s 17A(2) of the WT Act, and consequently the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 18(1)(c) are unsustainable/bad in law . The Court held taht the Wealth Tax Officer will have to investigate into the factual aspect and will have to re-examine the matter and thereafter, conclude whether the period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax, is indeed attracted in this case, in the light of explanation 3 to Section 18 of the Wealth Tax Act. The issue as to whether, explanation 3 to Section 18 of the Wealth Tax Act, is attracted or not, is a mixed question of law and facts and therefore, the Wealth Tax Officer will have to consider this issue as well. Needless to mention that the Wealth Tax Officer will have to afford an opportunity of hearing before deciding the matter in pursuance of the remand. The substantial questions of law as framed, therefore, cannot be answered in favour of the appellant, at this stage, as raised. (AY. 2001-02, 2002-03,2003-04,2004-05 and 2005-06)
EDC Ltd. v. CWT (2020) 191 DTR 397 / 315 CTR 760 (Bom) (HC
Wealth -tax Act , 1957
S. 17 : Reassessment – Limitation – Matter remanded to wealth tax officer for verification [ S .18 (1)(c ) ]