9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opy of which appears at pages 1 to 3 of the assessee's paper book. According to this will he appointed Lloyds Bank Ltd.,Englandas executors and trustees of the will. In the will he mentioned seven beneficiaries, which are as under : 1. Olive Muriel Hotz, wife 2. Albet Carlton Hotz 3. Nancy Marguite Hotz 4. Frnak Edwin Hotz 5. Betty Hotz 6. John Robert Hotz 7. Pamela Edwina Hotz 4. He bequeathed all the property both real and personal of which he would be possessed at the time of death over which he had or shall have any disposing power, unto the bank upon trust to sell, call in and convert into money such parts thereof as shall not consist of ready money. After payment of just debts and funeral and customary and testamentary expenses the beneficiaries if more than one had to share the estate in equal shares as tenants-in-common but his wife had to take a double share. 5. Mr. Edwin Hotz died on9-9-1957inEngland. As mentioned supra Lloyds Bank Ltd. was appointed as the sole executor of the will of the deceased. However, the said bank renounced the executorship of the will by executing a deed of renunciation on23-1-1963. The widow of late Edwin Hotz, Mrs. Olive Muriel Hotz, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there are seven beneficiarses who are related to each other and they became the owner of the estate of the deceased. The WTO also records that the beneficiaries 'are not resident inIndiaand they did not visit or reside inIndiaduring the year 1966 or thereafter'. Therefore, for the purpose of assessment he took their status as declared in the return to be that of individual and not citizen ofIndiaand 'non-resident'. The WTO further records that the valuation of ordinary shares of private limited companies has been made properly as he has looked into it. The assessments so framed appear at pages 7 to83 inrespect of the seven beneficiaries. 7. It appears that after all this was done by the WTO, the IAC of Income-tax, Range4C, Central Revenue's Building, Indraprastha Estate wrote a letter dated 29/30-3-1976 and this was attended to by B.C. Dasgupta & Co. It appears that the AAC holding that post then was Shri S.K. Roy. The attorneys for the beneficiaries in this letter projected that they had discussion with the IAC on8-4-1976when the hearing was adjourned to15-4-1976. This discussion was regarding the assessment of the beneficiaries to the estate of Edwin Hotz (deceased) and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. The assessment was framed on net wealth of Rs. 6,26,600. This was challenged in appeal before the AAC. 9. The first ground before the AAC was that notice under section 17 does not lie and, hence, the entire proceedings are void. The learned AAC has made a very brief order in dismissing the appeal with the observation that he found himself unable to agree with the plea advanced. 10. Before us on behalf of the assessee, it was contended by the learned counsel for the assessee that the proceedings for the impugned assessment are ab initio void because the notice issued by the WTO did not indicate the limb of section 17(1) which he was invoking. In view of the fact that the returns had been filed for all the seven beneficiaries voluntarily by them and they had even been assessed, the notice issued under section 17 was illegal and without any lawful authority. It was submitted that this was a case of merely of a change of opinion by the authorities concerned, as there was no escapement of net wealth by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee either to file the return or to furnish inaccurate particulars of net wealth. A mere change of opinion does not vest the WTO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds of the administrators in one assessment or in the hands of the beneficiaries according to their shares were available to him. With all this evidence before the WTO assessments were raised by him for and from the assessment years 1967-68 to 1975-76 on all the beneficiaries severally, independently and individually. There assessments were valid and they stood as validly made assessments on the day when the notice under section 17 was issued by the WTO on14-1-1981to the present assessee-appellant before us. 15. For the issuance of notice under section 17 on14-1-1981in accordance with law, the WTO had two options open to him. Section 17 ibid provided the first choice that if the WTO had reason to believe that by reason or omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 14 of his net wealth in respect of which he was assessable under the Act for any assessment year or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of his net wealth, the net wealth chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in that year whether by reason of understatement or assessment at too low a rate or otherwise he could issue notice under section 17(1)(a). 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come-tax Act, 1922, is stated too widely and travels farther than the statute warrants. The Court has pointed that reappraisal of the material considered by the officer in the original assessment cannot be said to be discovering an error in consequence of which escapement is established and reopening of assessment is justified. An error discovered on reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. 18. Inthe case before us there was no material, whatsoever, other than the material that was before the WTO and had already been considered while making the assessments of the beneficiaries, to enable the WTO to start the proceedings under section 17. The proceedings were started without any basis either on facts or in law. The WTO was merely changing his opinion, on the same set of facts. Even while doing so the WTO did not record the reasons for initiation of proceedings under section 17(1)(a). There is not even an iota of evidence to justify these proceedings because a change of opinion, on same set of facts which had earlier been considered, cannot invest the WTO with lawful jurisdiction to make assessment under section 17(1)(a). It has, therefore, to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
