MAHARAJA AMRINDER SINGHversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

                            [2017] I4 S.C.R. 590


A                    MAHARAJA AMRINDER SINGH
                                      v.
                THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
                        (Civil Appeal No.1349 of 2007)
B                          SEPTEMBER 05, 2017
       [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.)
          Wealth Tax Act. 1957 -s.27-A - Penalty levied upon appellant-
  assessee hy Assessing Officer - income Tax Appellate Tribunal (JTAT)
C decided in favour of the appellant - High Court in appeal by
  revenue u/s. 27A set aside the order of ITAT and restored the order
  of assessment passed by the Assessing officer - Justifiahilizv of -
  On appeal. held: Section 27-A provides a remedy of appeal to the
  High Court against the order of ITAT and is pari matcria to s. l 00,
  CPC-For exercise o,fpowers uls: JOO. CPC by High Court. existence
D of substantial question o.f law is sine qua non and in the absence of
  such substantial question of law the appeal merits dismissal in
   limine -Appeal.filed uls.27-A has to be decided like a second appeal
   uls. JOO. CPC - Howeve1; in the instant case the High Court
  proceeded to decide the appeals filed by revenue uls.27A without
E formulating the substantial question(s) of law - Matters remanded
   to High Court for deciding the appeals afresh after formulating
  substantial questions of /av.: if it so arises - Code of Civil Procedure.
   1908 - s.100.
            Doctrines/Principles - Principle of "legislation by
    incorporation" - s. 27-A of the 1957 Act provides a remedy of appeal
F
    to the High Court against the order of ITAT and is pari materia to
    s. l 00. CPC. 1908 - Held: Section 100. CPC is bodily !(fled from
    the Code and incorporated in s.27-A of the 1957 Act with minor
    additions and alterations by following the principle of "legislation
    by incorporation" - Wealth Tax Act. 1957 - s.27-A - Code of Civil
G   Procedure. 1908 - s.100.
          Allowing the appeals, the Court
          HELD: 1.1 Section 2 7-A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957
    provides a remedy of appeal to the High Court against the order
    of the 1.ncomc Tax Appellate Tribunal and is modeled on existing
H   Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The language
                                  590
  MAHARAJA AMRINDER SINGH v. THE COMMISSIONER OF                          591
                  WEALTH TAX

 of Section 27-A of the 1957 Act and Section 100 of the CPC is A
 identical. Both the Sections arc, therefore, in pal'i '!tatel'ia. It is
 a case where Section 100 is bodily lifted ftom the Code and
 incorporated in Section 27-A of the 1957 Act with minor additions ,
 and alterations by following the principle of "legislation by
 incorporation". [Para 7) (594-F]
                                                                          B
       1.2 In order to admit the second appeal, what is required
 to be made out by the appellant being sine qua non for exercise · ·
 of powers under Section 100 of the CPC, is existence of
 "substantial question of law" arising in the case so as to empower
 the High Court to admit the appeal for final hearing by formulating C
 such question. In the absence of any substantial question of Jaw
 arising in appeal, the same merits dismissal in liminc on the
 ground that the appeal does not involve any substantial question
 of law within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC. (Para 9] (595-D]
       Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by.
       L.Rs., (2001) 3 SCC 179 : [2001] l SCR 948 - held                  D
       applicable.
       1.3 The interpretation of Section 100 equally applies to
 Section 27-A of the Act because firstly, both Sections provide a
 remedy of appeal to the High Court; Secondly, both Sections arc
 identically worded and i11 pari materia; Thirdly, Section 27-A is        E
 enacted by following the principle of "legislation by
 incorporation"; fourthly, Section 100 is bodily lifted from the Code
 and incorporated as Section 27-A in the A~t; and lastly, since
 both Sections are akin to each other in all respects, the appeal
 filed under Section 27-A of the Act has-to be decided like a second      F
 appeal under Section 100 of the Code. (Para 10) (595-F)
        1.4 On the facts of the present case, it is found that the
  High Court proceeded to decide the appeals without formulating
  the substantial qucstion(s) of law. Indeed, the High Court did not
. make any effort to find out as to whether the appeals inv!>lv.ed        G
  any substantial question(s) of law and, if so, which is/are that
  question(s) and nor it formulated such question(s), ifin i~s 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)]. [Para 11] [595-G-
  H; 596-A]                                                         -     H
~-
592              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 14 S.C.R.


.A                             Case Law Reference
      (2001) 1 SCR 948                  held applicable          Para 8
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1349 of
      2007.
B          From the .Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2004 passed by the
      High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Wealth Tax Appeal
      No.IO & 11 of2001.
                                       WITH
              Civil Appeal No.1350/2007
c          C.S. Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Ms. Tanuj Bagga, Bhargava V. Desai,
      Ms.Pushpa Sharma, Akshat Malpani, Uma Shankar, Advs. for the
      Appellants.
         Y. P. Adhyaru, Sr. Adv., Ms.Niranjana Singh, H.R. Rao, Mrs. ·
D .Anil Katiyar, B.V. Balaram Das, Advs. for the Respondents.
              The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. These appeals arc filed
      against the final judgment and orders dated 24.08.2004 passed by the
      High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Wealth Tax Appeal
 E    Nos. IO & I 112001 and 3.4 & 512002 respectively whereby the High
      Court allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Wealth
      Tax) under Section27-Aofthe Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred
      to as "the Act") and set aside the order dated 05 .07.2011 passed by the
      Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter reforred to as "the Tribunal"),
      Chandigarh Bench in W.T.A. No.I 1,12 & 13/Chandi/95 & C.0. No.37/
 F    Chandi/95 in W.T.A. No. I 1/Chandi/95 and order dated 13.06.200.1 in
      W.T.A. Nos.213, 191 and 192/Chandi/94 and restored the order of
      assessment passed by the Assessing officer for levying penalty for the
      entire period of delay in respect ofAssessment Years ~ 981-82, 1982-83
      and 1983-84.
G             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 Years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. The issue involved in
   these three assessment years was decided by the Tribunal in favour of
 H the appellant (assessee) which gave rise to filing of the appeals before
MAHA RAJA AMRINDER SINGH. v. THE COMMISSIONER OF                             593
     WEALTH TAX [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

the High Court by the Revenue under Section 27-AoftheAct questioning A
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       B
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.
       5. 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    c
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, ifit so arises in the case.
      6. Section 27 - A of the Wealth Tax Act reads as under
        "27-A Appeal to High Court. --:                                      D
        (1) The assesse.e or the Chief Commissioner or
        Commissioner may within one hundred twenty days of the
        day upon which he is served with notice ofan order under
        section 24 or section 26 or chmse (e) of sub-section (1) of
        section 35, file
                       on or alter the 1st day of October, 1998 but          E
        before the date of establishment of the National Tax
        Tribunal appe~I before the High Court.
        (lA) The High Court may admit an appeal after the expiry
        of the period of one hundred and twenty days referred to
        in sub-section (1), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient     F
        cause for not filing the same within that period.
        (2) An appeal shall lie to the High Court before the date
        of establishment the National Tax Tribunal from every
        order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, under
        sub-section (1) of section 24 only if the High Court .is G
        satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of
        law.
        (3) In an appeal under this section, the Memorandum of
        Appealshall precisely state the substantial question oflaw
        involved in the appeal.                                    H
594            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 14 S.C.R.


A             (4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial
              question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate
              that question.
              (5) The appeal shall be heard only on the questilin so
              formulated and the respondent shall, at the time of hearing
B             of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case docs not
              involve such question: Provided that nothing in this sub-
              section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power
              of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal
              on any other substantial question of law not formulated by
              it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.
c
              (6) The High Court shall decide the question of law so
              formulated and deliver such judgment thereon containing
              the grounds on which such decision is founded and may
              award such cost as it deems fit.

D             (7) The Assessing Officer shall give effect to the order of
              the High Court on the basis of a certified copy of judgment ·
              delivered under sub-section (6).
              (8) The Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
              (5 of 1908) relating to appeals to High Court shall, so far
E             as may he, apply in the case of appeals under this section."
             7. Section 27-A of the Act, which provides a remedy of appeal to
      the High Court against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
      is modeled on existing Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
      (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). Indeed, as would be clear, the
      language of Section 27-A of the Act and Section 100 of the Code is
 F
      identical. Both the Sections arc, therefore, in pari materia. It is a case
      where Section 100 of t_he Code is bodily lifted from the Code and
      incorporated in Section 27-A of the Act with minor additions and
      alterations by following the principle of"legislation by incorporation".
G           8. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Santosh Hazari vs.
      Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs., (2001) 3 SCC 179 had
      examined the scope of Section 100 of the Code of the Civil procedure,
      1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). Justice R.C. Lahoti (as
      His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench laid down the following
      proposition oflaw in Para 9:
H
 MAHARAJA AMRINDER SINGH v. THE COMMISSIONER OF                               595
     WEALTH TAX [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

      . "9. The High Court cannot ·proceed to hear a second                   A
        appeal without formulating the substantial question of law
        involved in the appeal and if it does so it acts illegally and
        in abnegation or abdication of the duty case on Court. The
        existence of substantial question of law is the sine qua
        non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended            B
        Section 100 of the Code. (Sec Kshitish Chandra Purkait
        v. Santosh Kumar Purkait,(1997) 5 SCC 438 Panchugopal
        Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami, (1997) 4 SCC 413 and
        Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, (1999)
        3 sec 122.)"
        9. His Lordship then in Paras I 0 to 14 succinctly explained the
                                                                              c
 meaning of the words "substantial question of law" and "question of
 law" and held that in order to admit the second nppcal, what is required
 to be made out by the appellant being sine qua 11011 for exercise of
 powers under Section l 00. of the Code, is existence of "substantial
 question oflaw" arising in the case so as to empower the High Court to D
 admit the appeal for final hearing by formulating such question. In the
 absence of any substantial question of law arising in appeal, the same
 merits dismissal in Iimine on the ground that the appeal does not involve
 any substantial question oflaw within the meaning of Section 100 of the
 Code.
                                                                              E
        10. Jn our considered opinion, the interpretation made by this Court
 of Section l 00 in Santosh Hazari's Case (supra), would equally apply
 to Section 27-A of 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, Section 27-A is enacted by following the
 prin.ciplc of"legislation by incorporation"; fourthly, Section 100 is bodily F
 lifted from the Code and incorporated as Section 27-A in the Act; and
 lastly, since both Sections arc akin to each other in all respects, the
'llppeal filed under Section 27-A of 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          G
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)
oflaw and. if so, which is/arc that question(s) and nor it formulated such
question(s), if in its opinion, really arose in the appeals. The High Court   H
596             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      (2017] 14 S.C.R.


A failed to see that it had jurisdiction to decide the appeals only on the
  question(s) so fonnulated 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 arc not legally sustainable
B and thus liable to be set aside.
           · 13. As a result, the appeals succeed and are allowed. Impugned
      orders are set aside. Both the cases are remanded to the High Court for
      deciding the appeals afresh in accordance with the observations made
      above.
c
      Divya Pandey                                              Appeals allowed.