Case: Maharaja Amrinder Singh Vs. Comnr. Of Wealth Tax,Patiala

2. Few facts need mention for disposal of the appeals.3. The appellant is the wealth tax assessee and is subjected to payment of Wealth Tax under the Act. The case pertains to the Assessment Years4. The issue involved in these three assessment years was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant (assessee) which gave rise to filing of the appeals before the High Court by the Revenue under Sectionof the Act questioning therein the legality and correctness of the orders of the Tribunal. As mentioned above, the High Court allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue, which has given rise to filing of these appeals by way of special leave before this Court by the assessee.4. The short question, which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the appeals filed by the Revenue and thereby was justified in setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal.

Court's reasoning:
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeals and while setting aside of the impugned orders of the High Court remand the case to the High Court for deciding the appeals afresh on merits after formulating the substantial questions of law, if it so arises in theas would be clear, the language of Sectionof the Act and Section 100 of the Code is identical. Both the Sections are, therefore, in pari materia. It is a case where Section 100 of the Code is bodily lifted from the Code and incorporated in Sectionof the Act with minor additions and alterations by following the principle of "legislation by incorporation".In our considered opinion, the interpretation made by this Court of Section 100 in Santosh Hazaris Case (supra), would equally apply to Sectionof the Act because firstly, both Sections provide a remedy of appeal to the High Court; Secondly, both Sections are identically worded and in pari materia; Thirdly, Sectionis enacted by following the principle of "legislation by incorporation"; fourthly, Section 100 is bodily lifted from the Code and incorporated as Sectionin the Act; and lastly, since both Sections are akin to each other in all respects, the appeal filed under Sectionof the Act has to be decided like a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code.11. Now coming to the facts of the case, we find that the High Court proceeded to decide the appeals without formulating the substantial question(s) of law. Indeed, the High Court did not make any effort to find out as to whether the appeals involved any substantial question(s) of law and, if so, which is/are that question(s) and nor it formulated such question(s), if in its opinion, really arose in the appeals. The High Court failed to see that it had jurisdiction to decide the appeals only on the question(s) so formulated and not beyond it. [Section 27(5)].12. In the light of foregoing discussion and keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Santosh Hazari (supra), we are of the considered view that the impugned orders are not legally sustainable and thus liable to be set aside.