9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (12) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ween the two values at Rs. 6,99,369 being the share of the assessee in the said firm which he computed at Rs. 1,74,842 under s. 17 of the WT Act. The said addition has been endorsed by the AAC on appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee has consequently come up in second appeal before us. 2. We have heard the representatives of the parties at length in this appeal. Th main point urged on behalf of the assessee was that the assessee had disclosed her capital in the books of the firm. She had also disclosed that she was a partner in the firm but she was not bound to disclose all the assets held by the firm inasmuch as they were not necessary to determine her wealth-tax liability. Therefore, the reopening of the proceedings for the computa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this beheld, therefore, would not help the assessee, for example, in Seth Satishkumar Modi vs. WTO (1980) 15 CTR (All) 340 : (1983) 139 ITR 373 (All) that was decided was that the valuation of shares adopted by the assessee at the cost price was in accordance with a well recognised Principe of accountancy and the net wealth of a firm has to be calculated on the principles of commercial accountancy. The belief which the WTO entertained that the net wealth of the assessee had escaped assessment was based on in relevant material and was arbitrary. In CWT (Guj) vs. Chatrashal Singhjoi D. Zala (1981) 25 CTR (Guj) 260 : (1982) 135 ITR 826, (Guj) a Valurer's report submitted by the assessee for the next year was held to be sufficient informati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiated during the pendency of those proceedings. It was urged that before this reopening a notice under s. 17 had been issued to the assessee on 14th Sept., 1976. A return was filed in pursuance thereof on 28th March 1977. A re-assessment was made on 15th Feb., 1978 by which the net wealth of the assessee was revised from Rs. 6,18,317 to Rs. 6,75,566. This order was the subject matter of appeal before the AAC who decided the same on 2nd Feb., 1980 and that order was served upon the assessee on 8th Feb. 1980. The present notice under s. 17 was issued on 30th March 1979. It was contended that procedings are continuation of the original assessments. For that purpose, reliance was placed on the decision of Supreme Court in CWT vs. Vimlaben Vadi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be reopened. This would lead to a ridiculous situation. Such proposition at least is not acceptable to us. All the decided cases are on the special facts and circumstances of each case and do not lay down a general proposition that there cannot be a reopening because originally arrangement proceedings are somehow or the other a subject matter of dispute before any higher authority. CWT vs. Vimlaben Vadilal (1983) 37 CTR (SC) 280 : (1984) 145 ITR 11 (SC) was not directly concerned with this question and in the other authorities, the appellate proceedings in retaliation to the original reopening under the relevant provision of law were not pending. We, are, therefore, not inclined to accept this ground. 6. In the result we are of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
