9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011-12 respectively. WTA Nos.16 to 18/Bang/2018 are filed by an assessee by name Smt. R. N. Nirmala against 3 orders all dated 22.11.2017 of CWT(A)-1, Bengaluru, relating to Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11. 2. In the appeals WTA Nos.13 to 15/Bang/2018 and WTA Nos.16-18, the common issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the Revenue authorities were justified in including the value of land co-owned by these 2 assessees as an asset for the purpose of Wealth Tax Act and in bringing the value of the said assets which is a property in Survey No.12/21 of Sarakki Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South measuring 1 Acre 35 ½ Cents. Shri. R. N. Shashank is owner of 56.67% share for Assessment Year 2010- 11 and 40% for As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te 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. Second Proviso to Sec.17(1) provides that the Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this sub-section, record his reasons for doing so. Clause (a) to Explanation 1 to Sec.17 lays down that where no return of net wealth has been furnished by the assessee although his net wealth or the net wealth of any other person in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... poses of the Income-tax Act. 6. It was a plea of the assessee that both the assessees were assessed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the ACIT, Circle-8(1), Bengaluru and therefore the notice dated 19.06.2014 issued by the erstwhile ACIT, Circle- 9(1), Bengaluru, is non est in law. Since the notice under section 17 was issued by an office having no jurisdiction over the assessee, the formation of belief regarding escapement of wealth chargeable to tax which is a sine quo non for issue of a valid notice u/s.17(1) was absent and therefore the reopening cannot be sustained as such belief can be entertained only the AO having jurisdiction over the assessee. 7. Subsequently, there was a cadre restructuring and the case of both the assessees we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 and it was contended that from those returns it would be clear that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the Assessees at the relevant point of time was the erstwhile ACIT, Circle-8(1), Bangalore and not the erstwhile ACIT, Circle-9(1), Bangalore. It was submitted that the learned ACIT, Circle-8(1), Bangalore, being the jurisdictional A.O. of the Assessees, was alone competent to form the belief that wealth has escaped assessment by virtue of reasons for that belief. It was submitted that the notice issued by the non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer after coming to the belief that wealth has escaped assessment cannot be countenanced as the said A.O. does not have the benefits of the returns of inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l regarding the re-opening of the Wealth tax assessment u/s 17 of the Wealth tax Act, 1957. Considering the facts mentioned in para 2 of the assessment order wherein in response to the request of the appellant seeking reasons for re-opening of the assessment, the AO had provided the said information vide letter dated 19.2.2016. Further, the appellant has not challenged this re-opening any further and instead joined the proceedings by furnishing further information as sought by the AO. A perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO clearly brings out the reason to believe that wealth chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and there are sufficient material before the AO to take action u/s 17 of the Wealth tax Act. Considering the same, I am of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons. We find merits in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee that the validity of notice issued under section 17 of the Act is primarily required to be adjudicated before a decision can be rendered on the merits of the additions made in the assessment. In this regard, we find that section 8 of the Wealth Tax Act lays down that Income Tax authorities specified in 116 of the Income Act, 1961, shall be Wealth Tax Authorities for the purpose of Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The powers and functions and jurisdiction under the Wealth Tax Act of various officers would be the same as per the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 11 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 lays down that the jurisdiction of AO and power to transfer the case under the Wealth Tax Act sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
