9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly correct in holding that there was no 'information' contained in the Revenue audit objection within the meaning of section 17(1) (b) which could justify the reopening of the assessment in view of Supreme Court's decision in 1the case of India and Eastern Newspaper Society [1979] 119 ITR 996 ? 2. Whether the aforesaid Supreme Court's decision had been correctly applied by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case ?" 2. The assessee Jagmohan Singh Kochhar and Sons is a HUF. For the assessment years in question, a question arose regarding the valuation for wealth-tax purposes of the assessee's 1/2 share in house property No. 124, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. The following table would show the values of the assessee's share as de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at by the Wealth-tax Officer on the basis of the report of the Valuation officer to whom reference was made by the WTO on9-1-1980. 3. In appeal the learned AAC, relying upon the decision on the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Brig. B. Lall v. WTO [1981] 127 ITR 308 annulled the reassessments. 4. The Appellate Tribunal noticed that the assessments were reopened on the basis of the following identical reasons, photostat copies of which had been filed by the department: "Reasons for reopening : The audit has in this case pointed out that the valuation in respect of the property at Sunder Nager stated that the rental income of Rs. 5,000 is not maintainable rent and he has taken his own notional rent of Rs. 44,400 and aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the WTO took the same value namely Rs. 1,39,000. For the A. Y. 1975-76 the assessee had itself declared a value of Rs. 1,39,000 as per the valuation certificate which was accepted by the WTO. For the A. Y. 1976-77 the statement of wealth furnished by the assessee mentioned that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had appointed an official receiver in view of the dispute between the assessee and the co-owner and the official receiver was managing the property and receiving the income therefrom and making the necessary expenditure and therefore, he was stated to be responsible as a representative assessee and therefore, the value declared was 'Nil'. However, the WTO, following the assessment for the preceding assessment year, took the value at Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AAC seems to have been under the impression that the reopening had been made on the basis of the report of the departmental valuation officer which was factually not correct. The Appellate Tribunal also notice that the Supreme court had overruled its earlier decision in the case of Kalyanji Maviji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 when it was laid down that reassessment was permissible even in cases where there was over sight, inadvertence or mistake of the ITO. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal took the view that there was no information within the meaning of section 17(1)(b) contained in the audit objection or audit note which could have justified the reopening of the assessment as interpreted by the Supreme court in the case of Indian an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
