9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (3) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts order dated February 7, 1981, for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner quashing the reassessment proceedings under section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year under consideration ?" The brief facts of the case are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r action under section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act which will get barred by limitation on March 31, 1975. The Valuation Officer submitted his report on March 22, 1975, and on that very date, notices were issued to the assessee for both the years, namely, 1970-71 and 1971-72. Reassessment proceedings under section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act were started. The reassessment orders were framed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of Brig. B. Lall v. WTO [1981] 127 ITR 308, the reassessment proceedings are null and void. The submission of learned counsel for the Revenue is that it was only on the basis of the returns for the subsequent years which were received by the Wealth-tax Officer, that the action under section 16A was taken. It is further submitted that even a mistake which has been committed could no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Officer and he has no power to follow a reverse process. Reference to the valuation cell cannot be followed by reassessment proceedings. In view of the decision of this court which is also the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Uma Debi Jhawar v. WTO [1982] 136 ITR 662, the Bombay High Court in Smt. Bella Cajeton Travasso v. WTO (Third) [1987] 166 ITR 49 and the Karnataka High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
