P. A. Jose v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
[Citation -2015-LL-0715-1]

Citation 2015-LL-0715-1
Appellant Name P. A. Jose
Respondent Name Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court SUPREME COURT
Relevant Act Wealth-tax
Date of Order 15/07/2015
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags substantial question of law
Bot Summary: It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court had committed an error by not framing substantial question of law as per the provisions of section 27A(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The appeal under the said section can be admitted only when a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and according to sub-section, the question of law has to be formulated by the High Court. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that such a question had not been framed and without framing a question of law, the appeal had been decided by the High Court. For the aforesaid reason and looking at the facts of the case, the matter is remitted to the High Court so that a substantial question of law can be framed, if any, and the appeal can be heard again. The impugned order is set aside and the appeals are, accordingly, disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs.


JUDGMENT Delay condoned. Leave granted. It has been submitted by learned counsel for appellant that High Court had committed error by not framing substantial question of law as per provisions of section 27A(3) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957. appeal under said section can be admitted only when substantial question of law is involved in appeal and according to sub-section (4), question of law has to be formulated by High Court. Upon perusal of impugned judgment, we find that such question had not been framed and without framing question of law, appeal had been decided by High Court. For aforesaid reason and looking at facts of case, matter is remitted to High Court so that substantial question of law can be framed, if any, and appeal can be heard again. impugned order is set aside and appeals are, accordingly, disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. *** P. A. Jose v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Report Error