9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to notices issued under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act for reopening assessments for the years 1976-77, 1977-78, and 1978-79. Analysis: The petitioners, sons and daughters of late Shri Manoharji Godrej, jointly own properties and have been assessed under the Wealth-tax Act. Disputes arose regarding the valuation of joint properties for assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, leading to appeals and remand by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Fresh assessments were made in 1981. Subsequently, for the assessment year 1975-76, valuation disputes arose again, with appeals being allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The focus of the current petition is on the assessments for 1976-77, 1977-78, and 1978-79, which were reopened by notices issued in 1984 under section 17(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. The petitioners contended that the assessments were based on Tribunal-directed valuations and couldn't be reopened due to a change of opinion. They argued that there was no concealment of wealth, so section 17(1)(a) and (b) shouldn't apply. The respondent, however, issued the notices based on a valuation report received in 1980, alleging undervaluation by the petitioners for the relevant years. The respondent asserted that the assessing authority had the power to reopen the assessments under section 17(1)(a) within the four-year limitation period. The court considered the jurisdictional aspect of entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Citing precedents, the court noted that matters of reassessment should be addressed before the authorities under the Act and not directly in writ jurisdiction. The court highlighted that the assessing authority had not considered the valuation report when making the original assessments, indicating a valid reason for reopening. It emphasized that the proper course for the petitioners was to raise objections before the assessing authority rather than seeking direct intervention by the court. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the objection that it should not be entertained under Article 226, emphasizing the availability of remedies under the Act for addressing the petitioners' concerns. In conclusion, the court declined to interfere in the reassessment process, directing the petitioners to pursue their objections through the appropriate channels provided by the Wealth-tax Act. The judgment underscores the importance of following the statutory procedures and exhausting available remedies within the framework of the Act before seeking judicial intervention.
|
