Case: Commissioner of Wealth Tax, West Bengal III Vs. Hall and Anderson Limited

This appeal arises from a reference under section 27 of thex Act, 1957, to be hereinafter referred to as " the Act ". The assessee is a company liable to pay. It is also liable to pay. At first its previous year was the financial year. For the assessment year8 it got its previous year changed from the financial year to the year commencing from 1st July of that year. Thereafter, its previous year ended on June 30 of every year In itsx proceedings for the assessment year, thex Officer took the valuation date as 31st March, 1957. But according to the assessee its valuation date should have been taken as 30th June, 1957, and not 31st March, 1957. Thex Officer rejected the contention of the assessee but in appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the contention of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the department went up in appeal to thex Appellate Tribunal, " B " Bench, Calcutta. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the department. Thereafter, at the instance of the, thefollowing question was referred to the High Court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having due regard to the definition of valuation date under section 2(q) of thex Act, 1957,theTribunal was right in holding that no assessment could be made underthex Act ontheassessee fortheassessment year8 ? " The High Court answered that question intheaffirmative and in favour oftheassessee. Thereafter, this appeal was brought after obtaining a certificate fromtheHigh Court. But, that certificate was found to be defective astheHigh Court had not given any reasons in support ofthecertificate.Thereafter,thedepartment obtained special leave from this court and filed Civil Appeal No. 1781 of 1971

Reasoning: he assesseewere to be assessed tox undertheIndianx Act, 1922, its previous year should have been taken astheyear ending 30th June, 1957. That being so, in ourrelevant valuation date forthepurpose ofx should also be taken as 30th June, 1957, in which casetheassessment yearwould be9 and not. Karkhanis appearing forthedepartment contended that forthepurpose ofassessingx one should ordinarily takethe31st March oftheprevious year asthevaluation date. This contention would have been acceptable but forthefact that withtheconsent ofthedepartmenttheassessee had changed its " previous year " forthepurpose of. Oncetheprevious year oftheassessee was changed forthepurpose ofx it became incumbent onthepart ofthex authorities to takethelast date of that year asthevaluation date. This is clearly required bythedefinition ofthe" valuation date " inthe