9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985-86 2nd Aug., 1985 26th March, 1990 1986-87 12th Aug., 1986 12th Aug., 1990 1987-88 17th Aug., 1987 12th Aug., 1990 1988-89 3rd Aug., 1988 12th Aug., 1990 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The controversy in the present batch of writ petitions centres around three properties belonging to the assessee. They are : 1. Karni Bhawan ; 2. Junagarh Fort ; and 3. Gajner Palace. In the original assessment completed under s. 16(3) of the Act, the value of these immovable properties was assessed on the basis of the order of the Settlement Commission dt. 14th March, 1990, which was with respect to the asst. yrs. 1978-79 to 1981-82. The AO, however, had sought the report of the Valuation Officer with respect to these properties before finalising the assessment. The valuation report was received on 26th March, 1991. On the basis of the valuation report, the notices for reassessment were iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for any assessment year (whether by reason of underassessment or assessment at too low a rate or otherwise), he may, subject to the other provisions of this section and section 17A, serve on such person a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, not being less than thirty days, as may be specified in the notice, a return in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner setting forth the net wealth in respect of which such person is assessable as on the valuation date mentioned in the notice, along with such other particulars as may be required by the notice, and may proceed to assess or reassess such net wealth and also any other net wealth chargeable to tax in respect of which such person is assessable, which has escaped assessment and which comes to, his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section referred to as the relevant assessment year) and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply as if the return were a return required to be furnished under section 14: Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 16 or this section has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment are totally without jurisdiction and as such are liable to be quashed. It was held that the key words in the section which bestow power in the Assessing Officer to issue notice of reassessment are : "reason to believe". If "reason to believe" is available on record, the writ court will not exercise its power of judicial review nor will it go into the questions of sufficiency or adequacy of the material available. However, if it is a case of absence of any reason or the reasons not being bona fide, or being based on irrelevant material, the notice of the assessment could be held to be without jurisdiction. On the facts of the case this court felt that no new material had come on record nor any fresh information had been received. There was no change of law. Therefore, it was found that it was a case of a mere change of opinion on the same given facts. It could not be said to be a case of any reason being available for the belief to reopen the assessment. The notices of reassessment were quashed. This was a case under sections 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, which give powers for reopening the income-tax assessments already completed. The following observations from the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt approved the decision of the Tribunal whereby it was held that the assessment which was already completed on proper principles could not be reopened on the basis of the valuation report obtained by the Wealth-tax Officer. Learned counsel submits that this case applied on all fours to the facts of the present case and as such should be followed. Learned counsel for the Revenue, R. D. jolly, raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petitions. He submits that in the facts of the present case it cannot be said that the notices of reassessment are without jurisdiction. For this reason, the writ petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be the remedy. Further, according to him, the petitioner can raise all the points which are being raised in the present proceedings before the Assessing Officer and from the order of the Assessing Officer, the petitioner has a right of appeal in accordance with the statute. Therefore, the petitioner has a right to avail of statutory remedies and the writ petitions are, therefore, not maintainable. On the merits he contended that in view of the provisions of section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in CWT v. V. Cleetus [1995] 213 ITR 14 in support of his case. In this case it was held: "that merely because the order of the Valuation Officer reached the Wealth-tax Officer after the completion of the assessment proceedings, it did not lose the character of information as envisaged under section 17(1)(b). In a case where the assessment proceedings were completed, the Wealth-tax Officer could not call for the order of the Valuation Officer. As the order of the Valuation Officer was called for during the pendency of the assessment proceedings, it could not be equated to a case where the order was sought after the completion of the assessment. As section 17(1)(b) in clear terms mentioned any information in the possession of the Wealth-tax Officer' for initiating the reassessment proceedings, the Valuation Officer's order which was certainly an information in the possession of the Wealth-tax Officer could not be considered to be devoid of any value or significance. The Wealth-tax Officer could certainly act on the information, though subsequently received, for initiating reassessment proceedings." We are fully in agreement with the view expressed by the Kerala High Court in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned counsel for the assessee on Jindal Photo Films Ltd.'s case [1998] 234 ITR 170 (Delhi) and Raghunandan's case [1987] 60 CTR 175 (Delhi) is of no avail. As already noticed in Jindal Photo Films Ltd.'s case [1998] 234 ITR 170 (Delhi) there was no basis for issuance Of notice Of reassessment. It was a case of mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer. Raghunandan's case [1987] 60 CTR 175 (Delhi) was a case of a completed assessment and the Wealth-tax Officer seeking the valuation report after having completed the assessment. In the present case, the valuer's report was sought while the assessment was still pending before the Assessing Officer but was received subsequent to the completion of assessment. Therefore, neither of these cases helps the petitioner. The notices of the reassessment in the case in hand cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. It follows from the above when the notices for reassessment cannot be said to be without jurisdiction the writ petitions challenging such notices are not maintainable. The petitioner has to participate in the departmental proceedings and raise all the objections there. The petitioner will be entitled to pursue remedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
