{"id":107501,"date":"1969-08-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-08-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969"},"modified":"2017-07-27T02:15:17","modified_gmt":"2017-07-26T20:45:17","slug":"commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, &#8230; vs Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., &#8230; on 8 August, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, &#8230; vs Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., &#8230; on 8 August, 1969<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR  352, \t\t  1970 SCR  (1) 789<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Ramaswami<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ramaswami, V.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF\t WEALTH-TAX,  CALCUTTA,\t NOWWEST BENGAL II\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTUNGABHADRA INDUSTRIES LTD., CALCUTTA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n08\/08\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nSHAH, J.C. (CJ)\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR  352\t\t  1970 SCR  (1) 789\n 1969 SCC  (2) 528\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1977 SC 142\t (7,11)\n\n\nACT:\n    Wealth  Tax Act, 1957. ss. 7(2)(a) and  27(6)--Valuation\nof  assets of running business--Value as given\tin  balance-\nsheet and written down value of assets--Which to be  adopted\nfor assessment--Assessee must  produce material to show that\nvalue  other  than  that shown in  balance-sheet  should  be\nadopted--Duty  of  Tribunal on receiving  judgment  of\tHigh\nCourt or Supreme Court.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t respondent company  was assessed to wealth-tax\t for\nthe  assessment\t years\t1957-58, 1958-59  and  1959-60.\t  In\ncomputing the net wealth of the respondent on the respective\nvaluation  dates the Wealth Tax Officer proceeded  under  s.\n7(2)(a) of the Act and included the full value of the  fixed\nassets\tas  shown  by  the  respondent\tin  the\t  respective\nbalance-sheets without any adjustment, after rejecting`\t its\ncontention that the fixed assets should be assessed at their\nwritten\t down value as computed for the purposes of  income-\ntax.  The  Appellate Assistant\tCommissioner  confirmed\t the\nvaluation but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that it\nwould be fair in the circumstances of the case to adopt\t the\nwritten\t down value of the asset's as value thereof for\t all\nthe years under appeal. On reference being made to it  under\ns.  27(1)  of  the Wealth Tax Act the  High  Court  held  in\n'favour of the respondent.  The Revenue appealed,\n    HELD:  The\trule of valuation  on the  basis  of  market\nvalue under s. 7(1) of the Act may not yield a true estimate\nof  the\t net  value of the total assets in  the\t case  of  a\nrunning business.  The legislature has therefore provided in\nsub-s.\t(2)(a)\tthat  when the assessee is  carrying  on   a\nbusiness   for\t which\taccounts  are  maintained   by\t him\n'regularly,  the Wealth-Tax Officer may determine  the\t net\nvalue  of   the business  as a whole, having regard  to\t the\nbalance-sheet of such business\tas on the valuation date and\nmake  such  adjustments\t therein  as the  circumstances\t  of\nthe  case  may require.\t The power conferred  upon  the\t tax\nofficer to make adjustments as the circumstances of the case\nmay require is also for\t the purpose of arriving at the true\nvalue  of the assets of the business.  It is of course\topen\nto  the assessee in any particular case to  establish  after\nproducing  relevant  materials that the value given  of\t the\nfixed\tassets\t in   the  balance-sheet   is\tartificially\ninflated.  It is also open to the assessee  to establish  by\nacceptable  reasons  that  the written\tdown  value  of\t any\nparticular asset represents the proper value of the asset on\nthe relevant valuation date.  In the absence of any material\nproduced  by  the assessee to demonstrate that\tthe  written\ndown value is the real value the Wealth-tax Officer would be\njustified in a normal case in taking the value given by\t the\nassessee  itself  to its fixed assets in  the  balance-sheet\nfor  the relevant year as the real value of the\t assets\t for\nthe purposes of the Wealth-tax. It is a question of fact  in\neach  case  as to whether the depreciation has to  be  taken\ninto  account in ascertaining the true value of the  assets.\nThe  onus  of  proof is on the assessee\t who  must   produce\nreliable material to show that the written down value of the\nassets\tand not the balance-sheet value is the\ttrue  value.\n[793 E-794 C]\n790\n     If,  therefore,  the assessee merely  claims  that\t the\nwritten\t down of the assets should be adopted but  fails  to\nproduce any material to show  that written down value is the\ntrue value, the Wealth-tax Officer is justified in rejecting\nthe  claims  and adopting the values shown by  the  assessee\nhimself\t in  his  balance-sheet as the\ttrue  value  of\t his\nassets. [794 C-D]\n     <a href=\"\/doc\/530481\/\">Kesoram Industries &amp; Cotton Mills Ltd. v.\tCommissioner\nof  Wealthtax  (Central)  Calcutta,<\/a> (1966)  59\tI.T.R.\t767,\napplied.\n     (ii) Section 27(6) of the Act  requires the Tribunal on\nreceiving a copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court or the\nHigh  Court  as the ease may be to pass such orders  as\t are\nnecessary  to  dispose\tof  the\t case  conformably  to\tsuch\njudgment. [794 E]\n     If\t the  Supreme  Court agrees with  the  view  of\t the\nTribunal  the appeal may be disposed of by a  formal  order.\nBut  if the Supreme Court  disagrees with the Tribunal on  a\nquestion  of law, the Tribunal must modify its order in\t the\nlight  of  the order of the Supreme Court.  If\tthe  Supreme\nCourt has held that the judgment of the Tribunal is vitiated\nbecause\t it is based on no evidence or because the  judgment\nproceeds upon a misconstruction of the statute, the Tribunal\nwould  be  under a duty to dispose of the  case\t conformably\nwith  the opinion of the Supreme Court and on the merits  of\nthe  dispute and re-hear the appeal. In all cases,  however,\nopportunity must be afforded to the parties of being  heard.\n[794 F-H]\n    Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, v. S.C.  Cambatta\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>v. Commissioner\t of Income-tax, (1967) 66 I.T.R. 478 (S.C.),<br \/>\napplied.\n<\/p>\n<p>&amp;<br \/>\n    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1629  to<br \/>\n1631 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Appeals  from the judgment and order dated\tJanuary\t 29,<br \/>\n1965 of the Calcutta High Court in Wealth Tax Matter No. 372<br \/>\nof 1961.\n<\/p>\n<p>    B.\tSen,  T.A. Ramachandran, R.N.  Sachthey\t  and\tB.D.<br \/>\nSharma, for the appellant (in &#8216;all the appeals).<br \/>\n    M.C. Chagla, R.K. Choudhury and B.P. Maheshwari, for the<br \/>\nrespondent (in all the appeals).\n<\/p>\n<p>    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    Ramaswami,\tJ.   This appeal is brought  by\t certificate<br \/>\ngranted\t  under\t s.  29(1)  of\tthe  Wealth   Tax   Act,1957<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment of<br \/>\nthe Calcutta High Court dated January 29, 1965 in Wealth Tax<br \/>\nMatter No. 372 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t respondent  is\t a  company  which  is\tassessed  to<br \/>\nwealthtax for the assessment years 1957-58,1958-59 and 1959-\n<\/p>\n<p>60.  In\t computing the net wealth of the respondent  on\t the<br \/>\nrespective valuation dates the Wealth Tax Officer  proceeded<br \/>\nunder  s. 7(2)(a) of the Act and included the full value  of<br \/>\nthe  fixed   assets   as  shown by  the\t respondent  in\t the<br \/>\nrespective  balance  sheets without  any  adjustment,  after<br \/>\nrejecting its  contention that\tthe  fixed assets should  be<br \/>\nassessed   at their written down  value as computed for\t the<br \/>\npurposes of income-tax.\t In the assessment order<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">791<\/span><br \/>\nfor   1957-58  the Wealth-tax Officer  gave his reasons\t  as<br \/>\nfollows :&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t   &#8220;The assessee claimed that since the full<br \/>\n\t      amount  of depreciation which  was  admissible<br \/>\n\t      under  the Incometax Act was not\tprovided  in<br \/>\n\t      the balance  sheet  the amount of depreciation<br \/>\n\t      not   provided  for  earlier  should  now\t  be<br \/>\n\t      deducted from the value of the assets in order<br \/>\n\t      to   arrive   at\tthe   net    wealth.\tThis<br \/>\n\t      contention   can\thardly\tbe  accepted.\t The<br \/>\n\t      depreciation  allowable under  the  Income-tax<br \/>\n\t      Act  does not determine  the  market value  of<br \/>\n\t      the   assets.    The   object   of    allowing<br \/>\n\t\t\t    depreciation  in the income-tax assess<br \/>\nment   is<br \/>\n\t      quite  different\tFor  the  purpose  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      wealth-tax   assessment\tthe  value  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      assets as estimated by the assessee itself  in<br \/>\n\t      its balance sheet has been accepted&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Similarly  in his assessment order for 1958-59 the   Wealth-<br \/>\ntax Officer stated as follows :&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t  &#8220;Excluding  the value of land,  the  total<br \/>\n\t      value  of the fixed  assets  as  per   balance<br \/>\n\t      sheet   amounts  to Rs. 60,53,811 whereas\t the<br \/>\n\t      assessee has shown in its return the value  of<br \/>\n\t      the  same at Rs. 7,69,435.  These values\thave<br \/>\n\t      been  shown  by the assessee on the  basis  of<br \/>\n\t      income-tax  written  down value and   not\t  on<br \/>\n\t      the  basis  of  the balance  sheet  values  as<br \/>\n\t      required\t  under\t  the\tglobal\t system\t  of<br \/>\n\t      valuation.   It is common knowledge  that\t the<br \/>\n\t      values of the imported machinery has increased<br \/>\n\t      considerably during the last few years and, on<br \/>\n\t      the valuation date, I do not think that  their<br \/>\n\t      value should be less than that provided for in<br \/>\n\t      the balance sheet&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the<br \/>\nvaluation  of  the  fixed assets.   On\tfurther\t appeal\t the<br \/>\nIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal held that it would be fair  in<br \/>\nthe  circumstances  of the case to adopt  the  written\tdown<br \/>\nvalue of the assets as value thereof for all the years under<br \/>\nappeal.\t In the course\tof its order the Appellate  Tribunal<br \/>\nsaid:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t   &#8220;The\t income-tax assessment\tdepreciation<br \/>\n\t      is  calculated  upon the original\t cost  in  a<br \/>\n\t      scientific  and\tsystematic manner  with\t due<br \/>\n\t      regard   to   the\t nature\t  of\tthe   asset.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      Therefore,    the\t written   down\t  value\t  as<br \/>\n\t      determined in the income-tax assessment may be<br \/>\n\t      taken  as the fair index of the net  value  of<br \/>\n\t      the  business assets in most  cases   &#8230;&#8230;..<br \/>\n\t      It   cannot  however  be\tlaid  down   as\t  an<br \/>\n\t      inflexible  rule of law that  in\tevery\tcase<br \/>\n\t      the written down value must  be taken  to\t  be<br \/>\n\t      the  net<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">792<\/span><br \/>\n\t      value  of the business assets.  If  that\twere<br \/>\n\t      so.  the\tLegislature would have\tsaid  so  in<br \/>\n\t      clear  terms  instead  of\t indulging  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      circumlocution  in  section 7(2)(a).  In\tthis<br \/>\n\t      particular case, it appears, the assessee\t did<br \/>\n\t      not make any reserve for depreciation and\t the<br \/>\n\t       assets  are old dating back from the  inception<br \/>\n\t      of    the\t  business  long  ago.\t  In   these<br \/>\n\t      circumstances,  in  our opinion, it  would  be<br \/>\n\t      fair  to adopt the written down value  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      assets  as  the  value thereof  for  all\t the<br \/>\n\t      years  under appeal  &#8230;.\t &#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>At  the\t instance  of the  Commissioner\t of  Income-tax\t the<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal stated a case to the High Court under  s.<br \/>\n27(1) of the Act on the following question of law :&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t    &#8220;Whether   on  the\tfacts  and  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      circumstances of the case, for the purpose  of<br \/>\n\t      determining the net value of the assets of the<br \/>\n\t      assessee under section 7(2) of the  Wealth-tax<br \/>\n\t      Act, 1957 the Tribunal was right in  directing<br \/>\n\t      that  the\t written down value  of\t the   fixed<br \/>\n\t      assets  of the assessee should be\t adopted  as<br \/>\n\t      the  value thereof, instead of  their  balance<br \/>\n\t      sheet value ?&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>By  its\t judgment  dated January 29,  1965  the\t High  Court<br \/>\nanswered  the question in the affirmative and in  favour  of<br \/>\nthe  respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section\t 7 of the Act stood as follows at the material\ttime<br \/>\n:&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t    &#8220;(1) The value of any asset, other\tthan<br \/>\n\t      cash,  for the purposes of this Act, shall  be<br \/>\n\t      estimated to be the price which in the opinion<br \/>\n\t      of  the Wealth-tax Officer it would  fetch  if<br \/>\n\t      sold in the open market on the valuation date.<br \/>\n\t\t    (2)\t Notwithstanding anything  contained<br \/>\n\t      in  subsection (1),&#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t    (a) where the assessee is carrying on  a<br \/>\n\t      business for which accounts are maintained  by<br \/>\n\t      him  regularly,  the Wealth-tax  Officer\tmay,<br \/>\n\t      instead of determining separately the value of<br \/>\n\t      each  asset  held\t by  the  assessee  in\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      business,\t  determine  the net  value  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      assets  of  the  business as  a  whole  having<br \/>\n\t      regard to the  balance-sheet  of such business<br \/>\n\t      as  on  the valuation  date  and\tmaking\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      adjustments  therein as the  circumstances  of<br \/>\n\t      the case may require.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">793<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      In   Kesoram  Industries\t&amp;  Cotton  Mills   Ltd.\t  v.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Commissioner  of  Wealth  Tax,\t(Central)  Calcutta(1)\t the<br \/>\nappellant-company  had\tshown in its balance-sheet  for\t the<br \/>\nperiod\tending\tMarch 31, 19.57, the  appreciated  value  on<br \/>\nrevaluation of its assets, after making certain adjustments,<br \/>\nat Rs. 2,60,52,357 and had introduced in the capital reserve<br \/>\nsurplus a corresponding balancing figure of Rs.\t 1,45,87,000<br \/>\nrepresenting  the increase in the value of the\tassets\tupon<br \/>\nre-valuation.  For the purposes\t of  wealth-tax\t the officer<br \/>\ntook  the  sum\tof Rs. 2,60,52,357 as  the  value   of\t the<br \/>\nassets,\t whereas  the company contended that  an  adjustment<br \/>\nought to be made in view of the increase in the value  shown<br \/>\nin  the balance-sheet on re-valuation.\tIt was held by\tthis<br \/>\nCourt  that  as no one could know better the  value  of\t the<br \/>\nassets than the assessee himself, the Wealth-tax Officer was<br \/>\njustified   in\t accepting  the value of the assets  at\t the<br \/>\nvigour\tshown by the appellant-company itself.\tIt was\topen<br \/>\nto  the appellant-company to convince the  authorities\tthat<br \/>\nthat figure was inflated for acceptable reasons; but it\t did<br \/>\nnot  make any such attempt. It was also open to the  Wealth-<br \/>\ntax   Officer\tto   reject  the   figure   given   by\t the<br \/>\nappellant-company and to adopt another figure if he was, for<br \/>\nsufficient  reasons,  satisfied\t that  the  figure given  by<br \/>\nthe appellant was wrong.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It  is  argued  on  behalf of  the  appellant  in\t the<br \/>\npresent\t  case that the High Court was not right in  holding<br \/>\nthat  the  principle   laid down by this  Court\t in  Kesoram<br \/>\nIndustries(1)  case is\t not   applicable.  In our   opinion<br \/>\nthere  is justification\t for  this   argument.\tUnder\tsub-<br \/>\nsection (1 ) of section 7 of the Act  the Wealth-tax Officer<br \/>\nis  authorised to estimate for\tthe  purpose of\t determining<br \/>\nthe  value of any asset, the price which it would fetch,  if<br \/>\nsold  in  the open market on the valuation date.   But\tthis<br \/>\nrule  in  the  case  of a  running  business  may  often  be<br \/>\ninconvenient  and may not yield a true estimate of  the\t net<br \/>\nvalue of the total assets of the business.  The\t legislature<br \/>\nhas,  therefore, provided in sub-section (2) (a) that  where<br \/>\nthe  assessee is carrying on a business for  which  accounts<br \/>\nare maintained by him regularly, the Wealth-tax Officer\t may<br \/>\ndetermine  the not value of the assets of the business as  a<br \/>\nwhole, having regard to the balancesheet of such business as<br \/>\non  the valuation date and make such adjustments therein  as<br \/>\nthe  circumstances  of\tthe  case   may require.  The  power<br \/>\nconferred  upon the tax officer to make adjustments  as\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances  of  the\tcase may require  is  also  for\t the<br \/>\npurpose\t of arriving at the true value of the assets of\t the<br \/>\nbusiness.   It\tis  of course open to the  assessee  in\t any<br \/>\nparticular  case  to  establish\t after\tproducing   relevant<br \/>\nmaterials  that\t the value given of the fixed as.sets in the<br \/>\nbalance sheet is artificially<br \/>\n(1) (1966) 59 I.T.R. 767.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">794<\/span><\/p>\n<p>inflated.   It is also open to the assessee to establish  by<br \/>\nacceptable  reasons  that  the written\tdown  value  of\t any<br \/>\nparticular asset represents the proper value of the asset on<br \/>\nthe relevant valuation date.  In the absence of any material<br \/>\nproduced  by  the assessee to demonstrate that\tthe  written<br \/>\ndown  value is the real value, the Wealth-tax Officer  would<br \/>\nbe  justified in a normal case in taking the value given  by<br \/>\nthe assessee itself to its fixed assets in its balance sheet<br \/>\nfor  the relevant year as the real value of the\t assets\t for<br \/>\nthe purposes of the wealth-tax.\t It is a question of fact in<br \/>\neach  case  as to whether the depreciation has to  be  taken<br \/>\ninto  account in ascertaining the true value of the  assets.<br \/>\nThe  onus  of  proof is on the assessee\t who  must   produce<br \/>\nreliable material to show that the written down value of the<br \/>\nassets\tand not the balance-sheet value is the\ttrue  value.<br \/>\nIf,  therefore, the assessee merely claims that the  written<br \/>\ndown  value  of the assets should be adopted  but  fails  to<br \/>\nproduce any material to show that the written down value  is<br \/>\nthe  true  value,  the Wealth-tax Officer  is  justified  in<br \/>\nrejecting  the claims and adopting the values shown  by\t the<br \/>\nassessee  himself in his balance sheet as the true value  of<br \/>\nhis assets.  In our opinion the High Court should have based<br \/>\nits decision on the principle of Kesoram Industries(1)\tcase<br \/>\nand  the  question of law should be answered in\t the  manner<br \/>\nstated by us in this judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>    But it is necessary to give certain effective directions<br \/>\nin  this  case.\t  Section  27(6) of  the  Act  requires\t the<br \/>\nTribunal on receiving a copy of the judgment of the  Supreme<br \/>\nCourt  or  the High Court as the case may be  to  pass\tsuch<br \/>\norders as are  necessary  to dispose of the case conformably<br \/>\nto  such judgment.  This clearly imposes an obligation\tupon<br \/>\nthe  Tribunal  to  dispose of the appeal in  the  light\t and<br \/>\nconformably with the judgment of the Supreme Court.   Before<br \/>\nthe Tribunal passes an order disposing of  the appeal  there<br \/>\nwould normally be a hearing.  The scope of the hearing\tmust<br \/>\nof  course depend upon the nature of  the  order  passed  by<br \/>\nthe  Supreme Court.  If the Supreme  Court  agrees with\t the<br \/>\nview  of  the Tribunal the appeal may be disposed  of  by  a<br \/>\nformal\torder.\tBut if the Supreme Court disagrees with\t the<br \/>\nTribunal on a question of law, the Tribunal must modify\t its<br \/>\norder  in the light of the order of the Supreme\t Court.\t  If<br \/>\nthe Supreme Court has held that the judgment of the Tribunal<br \/>\nis  vitiated because it is based on no evidence\t or  because<br \/>\nthe judgment proceeds upon a misconstruction of the statute,<br \/>\nthe  Tribunal would be under a duty to dispose of  the\tcase<br \/>\nconformably with the opinion of the Supreme Court and on the<br \/>\nmerits\t of   the dispute and re-hear the  appeal.   In\t all<br \/>\ncases, however, opportunity must be afforded to the  parties<br \/>\nof being heard.\t In Income(l) [1966] 59 I.T.R. 767.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">795<\/span><\/p>\n<p>tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay v.S.C. Cambatta &amp; Co. Ltd.(1)<br \/>\nthe  Bombay High Court has explained the procedure  followed<br \/>\nin the disposal of an appeal conformably to the judgment  of<br \/>\nthe High Court.\t Chagla C.J. in delivering the judgment\t .of<br \/>\nthe  Court observed :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t  &#8220;&#8230;..   when a reference is made  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      High  Court    e her under  section  66(1)  or<br \/>\n\t      section 66(2) the decision   of the  Appellate<br \/>\n\t      Tribunal cannot be looked upon  as  final;  in<br \/>\n\t      other   words,  the  appeal  is  not   finally<br \/>\n\t      disposed\tof.  It is only when the High  Court<br \/>\n\t      decided  the  case,  exercises  its   advisory<br \/>\n\t      jurisdiction,  and  gives\t directions  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      Tribunal on questions of law, and the Tribunal<br \/>\n\t      reconsiders  the matter and decides  it,\tthat<br \/>\n\t      the appeal finally disposed of  &#8230;&#8230;.  it is<br \/>\n\t      clear  that  what the  Appellate\tTribunal  is<br \/>\n\t      doing after the High Court has heard the\tcase<br \/>\n\t      is  to  exercise its  appellate  powers  under<br \/>\n\t      section 33  &#8230;&#8230;  The shape that the  appeal<br \/>\n\t      would  ultimately take and the  decision\tthat<br \/>\n\t      the  Appellate Tribunal would ultimately\tgive<br \/>\n\t      would  entirely depend upon the view taken  by<br \/>\n\t      the High Court.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This  passage  was  quoted with approval by  this  Court  in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1595917\/\">Esthuri Aswathiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax<\/a>(2).  In\t the<br \/>\npresent case, therefore, the answer we have furnished to the<br \/>\nquestion in the reference means that the Appellate  Tribunal<br \/>\nmust now, in conformity with the judgment of this Court, act<br \/>\nunder  s. 27(6) of the Act, that is to say, dispose  of\t the<br \/>\ncase   after  rehearing\t the  respondent-company   and\t the<br \/>\nCommissioner  in the light of the evidence and according  to<br \/>\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n<p>      There will be-no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>G.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>(1) (1956) 29 I.T.R. 118, 120.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)  (1967) 66 I.T.R. 478 (S.C.).\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">796<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, &#8230; vs Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., &#8230; on 8 August, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 352, 1970 SCR (1) 789 Author: V Ramaswami Bench: Ramaswami, V. PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CALCUTTA, NOWWEST BENGAL II Vs. RESPONDENT: TUNGABHADRA INDUSTRIES LTD., CALCUTTA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/08\/1969 BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. BENCH: RAMASWAMI, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-107501","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, ... vs Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., ... on 8 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, ... vs Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., ... on 8 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1969-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-26T20:45:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, &#8230; vs Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., &#8230; on 8 August, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-26T20:45:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969\"},\"wordCount\":2214,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, ... vs Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., ... on 8 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-26T20:45:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, &#8230; vs Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., &#8230; on 8 August, 1969\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, ... vs Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., ... on 8 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, ... vs Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., ... on 8 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-26T20:45:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, &#8230; vs Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., &#8230; on 8 August, 1969","datePublished":"1969-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-26T20:45:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969"},"wordCount":2214,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969","name":"Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, ... vs Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., ... on 8 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-26T20:45:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-tungabhadra-industries-ltd-on-8-august-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, &#8230; vs Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., &#8230; on 8 August, 1969"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107501","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=107501"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107501\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107501"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107501"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107501"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}