9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Wealth-tax Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings under section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 based on valuation reports after completion of assessment. Analysis: The judgment pertains to two cases referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. The primary issue revolves around the jurisdiction of the Wealth-tax Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings. The Wealth-tax Officer had sought valuation of immovable property owned by a firm, Messrs. Maniram and Sons, for assessment years 1971-72 and 1974-75. The valuer's report determined the property value for the relevant years. Subsequently, the Officer issued notices for escaped assessment for 1972-73 and 1973-74 based on the valuation report. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax, citing precedent, held that the power to refer valuation questions after accepting a registered valuer's valuation cannot be exercised post a completed assessment. The Tribunal further observed that no wealth-tax proceedings were pending for two partners, and even if pending for the third partner, completed assessments could not be reopened based on the Valuation Officer's report. The court emphasized that the Wealth-tax Officer's jurisdiction to refer valuation to the Valuation Officer is only valid when assessments are pending, not after completion. The judgment referenced various legal precedents to support its conclusion. It highlighted that once an assessment is completed, the Officer's role under section 16A ceases, and reassessment cannot be initiated based on valuation reports. The court differentiated between pending and completed assessments, emphasizing the need for valid information and reason to believe for reassessment under section 17(1)(b) of the Act. The judgment also contrasted conflicting views from different High Courts regarding reopening assessments based on Valuation Officer reports. Ultimately, the court held that the Wealth-tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings based on the Valuation Officer's report after completing assessments. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to cancel the assessments made under section 17(1)(b) was upheld in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
|
