2009 PTD 742
ORDER
1. These stay applications have been filed by the assessee stating that following tax demand is outstanding against him:---
2. Assessment years
3. Amount of Tax
4. 1994-95
5. Rs.1,101,358
6. 1995-96
7. Rs.2,593,158
8. 1996-97
9. Rs.2,339,840
10. 1997-98
11. Rs.4,078,871
12. 1998-99
13. Rs.3,815,009
14. 1999-2000
15. Rs.3,555,184
16. 2000-2001
17. Rs.3,294,759
18. It has been stated that the appeals regarding the assessments of wealth tax framed for the above mentioned assessment years were decided by the Tribunal vide combined order dated 29-2-2008. However it has been stated that rectification has been filed before the Tribunal which is pending. It has also been stated that the rectification applications have been filed mainly on the ground that the Tribunal erred in restoring the additional tax charged for the period from the due date till the framing of assessments whereas under the provisions of section 31B(1)(b) it was chargeable only for the period till the end of the relevant assessment year. In this regard, learned AR referred the decision of the Tribunal reported as 2002 PTD (Trib) 221. Learned AR submitted that in the referred case it was held that the provisions of section 31B(1)(b) were not only prospectively effective but being remedial in nature was also applicable on the pending assessments of the previous years also.
2. Learned AR stated that the tax demand in question outstanding against the assessee is not only exaggerated but also incorrect being against the relevant provisions of law. He stated that the pending rectification application lying before the forum will finally determined the fate of this tax demand. He requested that at the present the additional tax calculated in excess of period as prescribed under the proviso to section 31B(1)(b) of the repealed Wealth Tax Act may be stayed: Learned DR opposed the request of the assessee stating that the tax demand is genuinely outstanding and no case has been made out by the assessee stay of recovery. He further stated that the department has not initiated any coercive measures for the recovery of outstanding tax demand hence there is no merit in the assessee's mentioned application.
3. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and taken into consideration the relevant provisions of law. Neither the facts of the case are given in the applications nor could be provided by the learned AR at the time of hearing of appeals. The bifurcation of wealth tax charged and the additional tax charged thereon under section 31B(1)(b) has not been given nor the grounds of miscellaneous applications or the basis of which rectification is sought could be provided by the learned AR at the time of hearing of appeals. However there is substance in the arguments of learned AR that/additional tax should have been charged in the light of the proviso to section 31B(1)(b) of Repealed Act. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that prima facie the calculation of additional tax does not appear to be correct. Final position of this matter will be determined at the time of hearing of assessee's application for rectification. However the request of the assessee for the grant of stay in respect of the excess amount of additional tax having been charged not in accordance with the provisions of section 31B(1)(b) is hereby accepted. It is therefore directed that calculation of additional tax should be made keeping in view the provisions of section 31B(1)(b) as well as the case law reported as 2002 PTD (Trio.) 221 and the balance demand of additional tax is hereby stayed for a period of two months or decision of miscellaneous applications for rectification whichever is earlier.
19. C.M.A./20/Tax(Trib.) Stay granted.