Rani Bilkis Banu Chowdhury Vs. Commissioner of Taxes, Dhaka, XV BLT (AD) (2007) 84

Case No: Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No. 793 of 2003

Judge: M. M. Ruhul Amin ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mr. A.K.M. Fakrul Islam,,

Citation: XV BLT (AD) (2007) 84

Case Year: 2007

Appellant: Rani Bilkis Banu Chowdhury

Respondent: Commissioner of Taxes

Subject: Income Tax, Fiscal Law,

Delivery Date: 2005-7-17

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Md. Ruhul Amin J
M. M. Ruhul Amin J
Md. Tafazzul Islam J
 
Mrs. Rani Bilkis Banu Chowdhury
…………………Petitioner
Vs.
The Commissioner of Taxes, Circle -88, Zone-8, Dhaka
…………………..Respondent
 
Judgment
July 17, 2005.
 
The Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
Section 160
In taxation matter reference is to be made out of final decision/judgment passed by the Taxes Appellate Tribunal. Since in the instant case, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation and the reference having not been made on point of limitation, the High Court Division rightly refused to answer the question raised. …. (8)
 
Lawyers Involved:
Fakrul Islam, Advocate-on-Record - For the Petitioner.
Not represented-the Respondents.
 
Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No. 793 of 2003.
(From the judgment and order dated 21.04.2003 passed by the High Court Division in Reference Application No.57 of 2000).
 
JUDGMENT
 
M. M. Ruhul Amin, J.
 
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.04.2003 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Reference Application No.57 of 2000 under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 which arose out of an order dated 22.03.2000 in Wealth Tax Appeal No.72 of 1999-2000 for the assessment year 1995-96 passed by the Taxes Appellate Tribunal Dhaka, Division Bench-1, Dhaka.
 
2. Short facts are that in the present reference application the petitioner Mrs. Rani Bilkis Banu Chowdhury submitted return for the Wealth Tax for the respective assessment years as aforesaid and the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes estimated the value of land and building at Tk. 72,00,000/- for the assessment year 1994-95. The said Assistant Commissioner of Taxes Dhaka Circle estimated the value of land and building at Tk. 79,50,000/- for the assessment year 1995-96 and estimated the value of the land and building at Tk. 90,00,000/- for the assessment year 1996-97 and also estimated the value of land and building of the applicant at Tk. 90,00,000/- for the assessment year 1996-98.
 
3. Being dissatisfied with the order of assessment the applicant preferred appeal before the Appellate Joint Commissioner of Taxes and the Appellate Joint Commissioner of Taxes rejected the appeal and affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes. The applicant then preferred second appeal before the Wealth Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 22.03.2000 dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal made before the Joint Commissioner of Taxes was time barred.
 
4. In the circumstances, the applicant before the High Court Division formulated the following point of law which is said to arise from the impugned order dated 22.03.2000.
 
5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes was justified in making valuation of land and building and that whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the order of Appellate Joint Commissioner of Taxes on the facts and under Rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 as the capital value of the property has been assessed by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes as local authority for the purpose of the property tax.
 
6. The High Court Division on consideration the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Attorney General held that from the impugned order dated 22.03.2000 passed by the Taxes Appellate Tribunal it is clear that the Tribunal only decided the question of limitation and found that the appeal preferred before the Appellate Joint Commissioner of Taxes was time barred and accordingly held that the Appellate Joint Commissioner of Taxes rightly rejected the appeal. The High Court Division, therefore, held that the question as formulated by the present petitioner in the reference application had not arisen from the impugned order passed by the Taxes Appellate Tribunal and hence the High Court Division cannot give any answer to the question raised.
 
7. We have heard Mr. Fakhrul Islam, the learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner and perused the judgment of the High Court Division and other connected papers.
 
8. In taxation matter reference is to be made out of final decision/judgment passed by the Taxes Appellate Tribunal.  Since in the instant case, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation and the reference having not been made on point of limitation, the High Court Division rightly refused to answer the question raised.
In the facts and circumstances, there is no cogent reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court Division.
 
Accordingly, the leave petition is dismissed.
 
Ed.