Appeals Nos
2269 and 2270 of 1966
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated  May 17 1966 of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax Andhra
Pradesh in J No Wt
34 and 35 of 1959 60
A K Sen B P Maheshwari and N R Kaitan for the appellant in both the appeals
section 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
The Wealth Tax Officer adopted the method prescribed by section 7 sub section
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
In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax confirmed the order passed by the Wealth Tax Officer
The Company then moved revision applications before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax under section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act
Against the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax rejecting the applications the
Company has filed these appeals under article 136 of the Constitution
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
We do not 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 normal 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
We have entertained these appeals because in our judgment the Commissioner of Wealth Tax has surrendered his authority and judgment to the Board of Revenue in deciding the questions which were sought to be raised by the Company in its revision applications
Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act provides insofar as it is material 1 The Commissioner may either of his own notion or on application made by an assessee in this 306 behalf call for the record of any proceeding under this Act in which an order has been passed by any authority subordinate to him and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and subject to the provi sions of this Act pass such order thereon not being order prejudicial to the assessee as the Commissioner thinks fit The power conferred by section 25 is not administrative it is quasi_judicial
The expression may make such inquiry and pass such order thereon does not confer any absolute discretion on the Commissioner
In exercise of the power the Commissioner must bring to bear an unbiased mind consider impartially the objections raised by the aggrieved party and decide the dispute according to procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice  he cannot permit his judgment to be influenced by matters not disclosed to the assessee nor by dictation of another authority
Section 13 of the Wealth Tax Act provides that all officers and other persons employed in the execution of this Act shall observe and follow the orders instructions and directions of the Board
These instructions may control the exercise of the power of the officers of the Department in matters administrative but not quasi judicial
The proviso to section 13 is somewhat obscure in its import
It enacts that no orders instructions or directions shall be given by the Board so as to interfere with the discretion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax in the exercise of his appellate functions
It does not however imply that the Board may give any directions or instructions to the Wealth Tax Officer or to the Commissioner in exercise of his quasi judicial function
Such an interpretation would be plainly contrary to the scheme of the Act and the nature of the power conferred upon the authorities invested with quasi judicial power
The Commissioner appears in our judgment  to have wholly misapprehended the true character of the jurisdiction with which he is by the Act entrusted and has surrendered his judgment to the directions of the Board of Revenue
The order sheet of the Commissioner at pp
10 36 of the printed Paper Book bearseloquent testimony to the manner in which the Commissioner has merely carried out the directions of the Board of Revenue instead of deciding the case according to his own judgment
In entry dated December 31 1959 there is a reference to the instructions contained in the Board s Circular No 7 D WT of 59 dated November 12 1959 received on November 30 1959
Under entry dated April 28 1960 there is again a reference to the Board s Circular No 7 D of 1959 suggesting the manner in 307 which depreciation has to be worked out for the purpose of determining wealth tax
Again in the entry dated June 17 1960 under item No 4 it is stated that the Board s instructions were specific on the point that no adjustment to depreciation relating to the period prior to March 31 1957 should be made while determining the total wealth of an assessee on the basis of global valuation 
Under entry dated August 7 1963 recorded by the Inspector it is stated that upon reference to the Board for instructions it was recommended that the petitions be kept pending decision of the matter till it was decided by the High Court in which the same question was raised
When on January 27 1966 the Company requested that the applications be kept pending till the disposal of the reference application by the High Court for the assessment year 1959 60 in which a similar point was involved the Commissioner was of the view that  the application need not be kept pending but still directed write to the Board 
A letter was written to the Board and the Commissioner acted according to the directions of the Board There is another entry dated March 14 1966 which refers to the letter of the Board agreeing that the revision applications for the two years may be rejected It is unnecessary to refer to any more entries made in the case sheet maintained by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax
From the inception of the proceedings the Commissioner of Wealth Tax put himself in communication with the Board of Central Revenue and sought instructions from that authority as to how the revision applications filed before him should be decided
He exercised no independent judgment
The Commissioner also recorded that the case did not require a personal hearing but since the Director of the Company had made a personal request for an interview it was thought desirable from the point of view of public relations to give an interview
 Here also the Commissioner misconceived the nature and extent of his jurisdiction
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax in these appeals has not attempted to support the order under appeal
We set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and direct that the revision applications be heard and disposed of according to law and uninfluenced by any instructions or directions given by the Board of Revenue
The Company will get its costs in this Court
One hearing fee
RKPS Appeal allowed


Summary:
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax confirmed an orde Passed by the Wealth Tax Officer as regards the method adopted by the latter in dealing with a claim for depreciation allowance made by the appellant company in the course of its assessment to wealth tax
The appellant company thereafter moved revision applications before the Com missioner under section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act and the Commissioner rejected these applications on the basis of certain directions issued by the Board of Revenue
On appeal to this Court by special Leave HELD  The order passed by the Commissioner must be set aside and the revision applications must be heard and disposed of according to law and uninfluenced by any instructions or directions given by the Board of Revenue
307 G H It Was clear on the facts that from the inception of the proceedings the Commissioner put himself in communication with the Board of Central Revenue and sought instructions from that authority as to bow the revision applications filed before him should be decided
He had exercised no independent judgment
The Commissioner appeared to have misapprehended the true character of the jurisdiction with which he is by the Act entrusted and surrendered his judgment to the directions of the Board of Revenue
306 F G 307 E G The power conferred by section 25 is not administrative  it is quasi judicial
In exercise of this power the Commissioner must bring to bear an unbiased mind
consider impartially the objections raised by the aggrieved party
and decide the dispute according to procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice he cannot permit his judgement to be influenced by matters not disclosed to the assesseee nor by dictation of another authority
Any orders or instructions given by the Board and required to be followed under section 13 by officers employed in the execution of the Act may control the exercise of their power in matters administralive but not quasi judicial
Although the proviso to section 13 which
is somewhat obscure in its import enacts that no orders shall be given by the Board so as to interfere with the discretion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the exercise of his appellate functions it does not thereby imply that the Board may give such orders to the Wealth Tax Officer or to the Commissioner in exercise of his quasi judicial function Such an interpretation would be plainly contrary to the scheme of the Act and the nature of the power conferred upon the authorities invested with quasijudicial power
306 B F 305