9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assistant Commissioner issued notice u/s 16(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for the assessment year 1989-90 and 1990-91. The petitioner raised an objection to the notice which was rejected. On writ petition court, holding that the proceedings initiated apparently under the provisions of the Income tax Act for the purpose of revising the wealth tax assessment could not be sustained, set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 1989-90. 2. The petitioner states that the reopening of the assessment after the lapse of time is clearly barred by limitation. The time limit provided under section 11 of the Wealth-tax Act is only 10 years. Consequently, there is no jurisdiction for the respondents to reopen the assessment. Hence, the present writ petitions have been filed. 3. It is seen from the documents produced before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same, however, under proceeding dated February 20, 2002 the same was rejected. 4. The petitioner filed writ petitions before this court in W. P. Nos. 8260 and 8261 of 2002. By order dated February 2, 2010 this court quashed the notices dated February 4, 2002. The writ petitions were however allowed pointing out that before proceeding with the assessment under the Wealth-tax Act, the assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 17 of the Wealth-tax Act. 5. On notice learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents defended the action of the respondents that the proceedings taken under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act is in accordance with the directions of this court. 6. The order passed by this court in W. P. Nos. 8260 and 8261of 2002 while quashing the orders directed that if the Department is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
