1983 (5) TMI 8 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction and legality of the notice under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
2. Alleged nondisclosure of material facts by the assessee.
3. Validity of reopening assessment based on new information.
4. Application of previous judicial precedents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and legality of the notice under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957:

The petitioner challenged the notice issued under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, claiming it was without jurisdiction, illegal, and void. The petitioner argued that there was no material basis for the Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) to believe that part of the wealth had escaped assessment. The court, however, found that the WTO had bona fide reasons to believe that the assessee failed to disclose fully or truly all material facts pertaining to the value of the shares, leading to a part of the net wealth escaping assessment. The court held that the communication from the Deputy Director of Inspection (Investigation) could be treated as information within the meaning of section 17 of the W.T. Act, thus validating the jurisdiction and legality of the notice.

2. Alleged nondisclosure of material facts by the assessee:

The petitioner contended that all materials and relevant facts were fully and correctly disclosed before the assessment and were considered by the WTO concerned. The court reviewed the affidavit by Narendralal Bhattacharya, which indicated that the valuation of shares of Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. was based on manipulated stock exchange quotations. The court concluded that the WTO had reasons to believe that the assessee did not disclose all material facts fully or truly, as the quotations did not reflect the fair market value due to the infrequency of transactions and the close nature of shareholding within the Bangur family.

3. Validity of reopening assessment based on new information:

The petitioner argued that the reopening of the assessment was based on a mere change of opinion and not new information. The court referred to the communication from the Deputy Director of Inspection (Investigation), which provided specific information about the manipulated quotations of the shares. The court distinguished this case from previous cases cited by the petitioner, noting that in the instant case, there were specific items of information recorded. The court held that the reopening of the assessment was valid as it was based on new information received in the usual course of official duties.

4. Application of previous judicial precedents:

The petitioner cited several judicial precedents to support their contentions, including Tulsidas Kilachand v. D. R. Chawla, Gobindlal Bangur v. WTO, and Purushottam Das Bangur v. ITO. The court distinguished these cases from the present case, noting that in the previous cases, the reopening of assessments was based on a mere change of opinion or mechanical following of directions without independent application of mind. The court found that in the present case, the WTO had independently applied his mind to the new information received. The court also referred to the Full Bench decision in Smt. Nirmala Birla v. WTO, which upheld the reopening of assessment based on similar communications from the Directorate of Inspection (Investigation).

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petitioner's application, discharged the rule, and vacated all interim orders. The court held that the WTO had valid reasons to reopen the assessment based on new information and that the petitioner's contentions could be adjudicated in the proceedings. The operation of the order was stayed for six weeks at the request of the petitioner's advocate.