Find a Lawyer

W.T.AS. NOS. 441/LB AND 442/LB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 8TH MARCH, 2003. versus W.T.AS. NOS. 441/LB AND 442/LB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 8TH MARCH, 2003.

The error correction order passed by the Additional Commissioner inspecting under Section 17B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, was validated by the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax under Section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, the only authority Could have improved the order he had. It was originally approved and can only be corrected in connection with the error that appears on the record. If the Revenue of the Inspector of the Additional Commissioner under Section 17B of the Financial Tax Act, 1963 was properly corrected by the Deputy, then the Commissioner Wealth Tax was accepted under Section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, then It would not only be contrary to the spirit of the law and the principle of practical jurisdiction assigned to various powers, but it could spread the conflict and in this case it could. That appraising officers begin to reform orders passed by appellate authorities such as the Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. The amendment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax under Section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, which was earlier rejected by the Appellate Authority, was rejected by the law which was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal of the Department. ? best advocate from Skardu lawyer