9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Challenge to notices issued under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act for assessment years 1973-74 to 1978-79. - Jurisdiction of the Wealth-tax Officer in issuing notices for escaped assessment. - Application of section 17(1)(a) and 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act. - Consideration of material facts necessary for assessment of net wealth. - Reopening of assessment based on information available at the time of original assessment. Analysis: The petitioner, being taxed as a Hindu undivided family under the Wealth-tax Act, challenged notices issued by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 17 for escaped assessment of net wealth for the years 1973-74 to 1978-79. The petitioner had consistently disclosed rental income in wealth-tax returns, including rent recoverable at year-end, which was not included in the net wealth assessment. The Wealth-tax Officer alleged non-disclosure of accrued rent, prompting the issuance of notices under section 17. However, the court found that the petitioner had fully disclosed all material facts necessary for net wealth assessment, as evidenced by the submitted statements. The Wealth-tax Officer's acceptance of the returns indicated proper disclosure, negating jurisdiction for notice under section 17(1)(a) of the Act. Regarding section 17(1)(b), the respondent argued that notices were valid as wealth (net rent due) had escaped assessment based on information possessed by the Wealth-tax Officer. However, the petitioner contended that no basis for this claim was presented in the notices or affidavit-in-reply. The court observed that the petitioner consistently highlighted the rent due but not included in the wealth assessment, indicating the Wealth-tax Officer's consideration of this material during the original assessment. Absence of evidence suggesting oversight or non-consideration led the court to reject the respondent's argument for reopening assessment under section 17(1)(b). Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that if details and statements were presented during the original assessment, it is implausible that the assessing officer did not consider such material. The assessment orders were issued after due consideration, and no new information or oversight was demonstrated to warrant reassessment. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashing the notices issued under section 17 and restraining further action by the respondents. The ruling was made absolute with no order as to costs, affirming the petitioner's position on the disclosure of material facts for wealth assessment and rejecting the jurisdiction of the Wealth-tax Officer to issue notices for escaped assessment without valid grounds.
|
