2004 (9) TMI 54 - HC - Wealth-tax

1. Whether Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the provisions of section 17 and not the provisions of section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act 1957 were applicable to the case? 2. Whether Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assets other than jewellery could be revalued in the course of the respondent assessee assessment proceedings under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act 1957? - We answer both the questions of law in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application of sections 17 and 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
2. Revaluation of assets in the course of assessment proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Application of Sections 17 and 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957:
The case involved a retrospective amendment to section 5(1)(viii) of the Act, withdrawing exemption on the value of jewellery. The Wealth-tax Officer reopened the assessment under section 17 of the Act due to the retrospective amendment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the reopening but limited the additions to the value of jewellery only. The Tribunal, however, allowed revaluation of other assets as well. The court held that the retrospective amendment justified the initiation of proceedings under section 17. The court cited various cases to establish that actions under sections 17 and 35 can overlap, and the Assessing Officer has the jurisdiction to choose the appropriate section based on the circumstances. The court emphasized that once an assessment is reopened, the entire assessment can be revised, not limited to the initial issue.

Issue 2: Revaluation of Assets in Assessment Proceedings:
Regarding the revaluation of assets other than jewellery during reassessment, the court held that once an assessment is reopened, the original assessment becomes inoperative. Citing relevant cases, the court established that the purpose of reassessment is to substitute the original order with a new one. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has the authority to revalue assets other than jewellery during reassessment proceedings. The court referred to precedents to support the principle that if an assessment is reopened, the entire assessment should be redone, allowing for revaluation of assets.

In conclusion, the court answered both questions in favor of the Revenue, affirming the authority to revalue assets other than jewellery during reassessment under section 17 and emphasizing the comprehensive nature of reassessment proceedings.