1987 (3) TMI 25 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues involved: Reopening of assessments u/s 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 and jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner u/s 16A of the Act.

Reopening of assessments u/s 17(1)(a) of the Act: The High Court addressed the issue of whether the Wealth-tax Officer was justified in reopening the assessments for the years 1967-68 to 1973-74 under section 17(1)(a) of the Act. The court noted that the assessee had disclosed primary facts in the return, including the sale of a plot of land and the deposit of sale proceeds in a bank. The Wealth-tax Officer, however, reopened the assessments citing failure to disclose the capitalised value of rent receivable from a property. The court emphasized that the obligation of the assessee is to disclose primary facts, not inferential facts, and that there must be full and true disclosure of all material facts. It was held that the Wealth-tax Officer did not have the authority to reopen the assessments if proper investigation was not conducted despite the disclosure of primary facts by the assessee. Therefore, the court concluded that the reopening of assessments under section 17(1)(a) was not justified.

Jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner u/s 16A: The court also considered whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had the jurisdiction to direct the Wealth-tax Officer to refer the matter to the Valuation Cell as per section 16A of the Act. In a separate judgment delivered earlier, it was established that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not have the authority to issue such a directive. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the assessee on this issue, concluding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner exceeded their jurisdiction in directing the referral to the Valuation Cell.

In conclusion, the High Court answered both questions in the negative and against the Revenue, holding that the reopening of assessments under section 17(1)(a) was not justified and that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to direct the referral to the Valuation Cell. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in this reference.