2002 (7) TMI 52 - HC - Wealth-tax

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the finding of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, from the interest of the assessee in the immovable property held by the firm? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment of the assessee for the year under consideration is not validly reopened under section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957? - we answer question No. 1 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and question No. 2 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of deduction under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for interest in immovable property held by the firm.
2. Validity of reopening the assessment under section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.

Analysis:
1. Validity of Deduction under Section 5(1)(iv): The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision allowing deduction under section 5(1)(iv) instead of section 5(1)(xxxii) for the assessee's interest in the firm's assets. The Revenue argued that if the reassessment was invalid, no deduction should be allowed under section 5(1)(iv). They contended that the original deduction under section 5(1)(xxxii) could not be changed without valid reassessment. However, the assessee's counsel argued that the partner and the firm are considered the same entity, making the partner eligible for the deduction under section 5(1)(iv). The Court agreed with the Revenue, denying the deduction under section 5(1)(iv) as the assessee was not the owner of the property.

2. Validity of Reopening Assessment under Section 17(1)(b): The Tribunal held that the reassessment was not valid under section 17(1)(b) as a mere change of opinion does not justify reopening. The Revenue argued that if the original assessment was based on incorrect facts, a reassessment could be initiated under section 17(1)(b). They cited a decision by the Gujarat High Court to support their stance. Conversely, the assessee contended that if no new material was presented, reassessment under section 17(1)(b) was not warranted. They relied on a Supreme Court decision to support their argument. The Court agreed with the assessee, ruling that the reassessment was invalid under section 17(1)(b) and that the relief originally allowed should stand.

In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue regarding the deduction under section 5(1)(iv) and in favor of the assessee regarding the validity of reopening the assessment under section 17(1)(b). The Court emphasized that without a valid reassessment, no change in relief could be made, and the Wealth-tax Officer lacked the authority to alter the relief granted in the original assessment. The reference was disposed of accordingly.