2015 (11) TMI 650 - HC - Wealth-tax

Validity of Wealth Tax Assessments - whether ITAT was justified in holding that the assessment order passed on 7.2.2007 is within the limitation period and hence a valid return ? - Held that - Assessment in the instant case was made on legal heir of late assessee who alone was declared to be the only legal heir by this court pursuant to dispute between different parties claiming to be legal heir of the assessee. Further assessment has been framed by the Assessing Officer to give effect to the conclusion of the Hon ble High Court that the properties owned by the assessee were his self acquired property and not owned by him in his HUF status. The said order of assessment giving effect to the orders passed by this court were passed under Section 17A(4) of Wealth Tax Act/153(3) of the Income Tax Act and could be passed at any time and the provisions of sub section (1), (1A), (1B) and (2) of the said section, had no application to the facts of the instant case and, therefore, the assessment proceedings can definitely be held to have been completed within the prescribed time frame. The provision of sub section (2A) to Section 153, which provision, as discussed above, is not at all applicable to the facts of the instant case. The order passed by ITAT, holding that the assessment order passed on 7.2.2007 was within limitation period is factually and legally correct and the said order does not suffer form any irregularity, illegality or perversity. Accordingly, both the questions of law are answered against the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and limitation period of the assessment order dated 7.2.2007.
2. Application of Section 153 of the Income Tax Act and Section 17A of the Wealth Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Limitation Period of the Assessment Order Dated 7.2.2007:
The primary contention was whether the assessment order passed on 7.2.2007 was within the prescribed limitation period. The petitioner argued that the order was time-barred as per Section 153(2) of the Income Tax Act, which requires reassessment orders to be completed within a specific timeframe. The respondent countered that the period during which proceedings were stayed by the court should be excluded from the computation of the limitation period.

The court examined a series of events and judicial orders that impacted the timeline of the case. It was noted that various interim orders and stays significantly affected the proceedings. For instance, the Hon'ble High Court stayed the assessment proceedings on 8.3.2006, which was later vacated on 11.12.2006. The assessment order was then passed on 7.2.2007, shortly after the stay was lifted.

The court concluded that the assessment order dated 7.2.2007 was within the limitation period when considering the exclusions provided under the law for periods during which proceedings were stayed by court orders.

2. Application of Section 153 of the Income Tax Act and Section 17A of the Wealth Tax Act:
The court analyzed the applicability of Section 153(2A) and 153(3)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Section 153(2A) pertains to cases where a fresh assessment is required following an appellate order setting aside or canceling an assessment, with a specific timeframe for completion. Conversely, Section 153(3)(ii) applies to assessments or reassessments made to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under specified sections, without a prescribed time limit.

The court found that the assessment in this case was made on the legal heir of the deceased assessee, following a judicial determination of the heir's status and the nature of the assets. The assessment was framed to give effect to the High Court's conclusions in related appeals, which clarified the self-acquired nature of the properties and resolved conflicting claims among legal heirs.

The court held that the provisions of Section 153(3)(ii) were applicable, allowing the assessment to be completed without the time constraints of Section 153(2A). This interpretation was reinforced by the fact that the proceedings were stayed pending the resolution of legal heirship and asset status issues, which were only settled shortly before the assessment order was issued.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the ITAT's decision that the assessment order dated 7.2.2007 was valid and within the limitation period, rejecting the assessee's contention of it being time-barred. The court emphasized that the exclusion of time during which proceedings were stayed by court orders was crucial in determining the validity of the assessment order. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the legality and correctness of the ITAT's order.