9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to reassessment notices for assessment years 1975-76 to 1979-80 under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, as the legal representative of the deceased assessee, challenged reassessment notices issued by the Wealth-tax Officer for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1979-80. The petitioner contended that the valuation of the land in question had been accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer previously. However, subsequent developments, including the enactment of the Urban Lands (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, led to a revision of the valuation. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax set aside the assessment order and directed reassessment based on the valuation by the Departmental Valuation Officer. The Tribunal initially remanded the matter to the Commissioner due to lack of material but later upheld the valuation adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer. Despite the Tribunal's decision in favor of the petitioner, reassessment notices were issued under section 17 of the Act for the year 1979-80. Regarding the first contention raised by the petitioner, it was argued that the notices issued by the respondent were time-barred under section 17 of the Act. The petitioner claimed that the period for issuing notices had expired, and subsequent amendments to the law could not be utilized by the authorities. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court decisions to support this argument. However, the respondent contended that the notices were not time-barred and could be issued based on the Tribunal's findings. The second objection raised by the petitioner was that after the Tribunal's decision in favor of the petitioner, it was improper for the respondent to issue reassessment notices. The Tribunal's findings indicated that the valuation adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer should be upheld, and the provisions of section 17 should not be invoked after a favorable decision for the petitioner on the merits. The Court agreed with the petitioner's argument, emphasizing that once the Tribunal decided in favor of the petitioner, the issuance of reassessment notices was unwarranted. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned notices and any related proceedings. The Court held that the reassessment notices were not valid after the Tribunal's decision in favor of the petitioner. No costs were awarded in the matter.
|
