9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case ?" The facts relating to this reference shortly stated are that the assessment for the assessment year 1975-76 was completed on March 6, 1980, whereas the assessment for the assessment year 1976-77 was completed on January 16, 1981. In both the assessment orders, an item of Rs. 4, 45,000 has been included under the head "Immovable property" and this is described as the value of Jaipur land as per return. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application for a clearance certificate under section 230A of the Income-tax Act on April 16, 1981. According to this application, the assessee proposed to sell this land at Jaipur to various parties for a total consideration of Rs. 3,69,600. Further, in the wealth-tax return for the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Section 25(2) provides that the Commissioner may call for and examine the records of any proceedings under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein (by the Wealth-tax Officer) is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling it and directing fresh assessment. The question is whether, in revising the assessment, the Commissioner has to restrict himself to the records which were available with the Wealth-tax Officer whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the records when the order is passed which may also indicate that the order passed is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It cannot be laid down as a general principle of law that, under no circumstances, the materials which may come into the possession of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax subsequent to the completion of the assessment by the Wealth-tax Officer cannot be looked into for the purpose of invoking his jurisdiction under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. In this case, it is necessary to find out the grounds on which the Commissioner of Wealth-tax exercised his jurisdiction. He held as follows : "As earlier stated, there is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessee subsequently in 1981 just after the completion of the impugned assessment. The main ground on which the Commisioner proceeded will be apparent from the following observation : " It is evident that a proper inquiry has not been made by the Wealth-tax Officer in respect of the value of the land in Jaipur in the assessments for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. Hence, the assessment orders of the Wealth-tax Officer for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 are erroneous in so far as they are prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 1, therefore, set aside the assessment orders for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 and direct the Wealth-tax Officer to make fresh assessments after proper inquiry relatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the address declared in the returns. Also, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in accepting the initial capital, the gift received and sale of jewellery, the income from business, etc., without any inquiry or evidence whatsoever. On this ground, the exercise of his jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income-tax was held to be proper. In Smt. Sumitra Devi Khirwal v. CIT [1972] 84 ITR 26 (Cal) one of the grounds was that the facts revealed that the Income-tax Officer completed the assessments post haste without making any enquiry or investigation into the relevant points necessary for making correct assessments. In our view, therefore, whenever a question arises as to whether a correct and proper assessment has been made upon due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner because on the face of the record the orders were prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and even if the facts which the Commissioner introduced regarding the enquiries made by him had been indicated to the assessee, the result would have been the same. The assessee, in our view, has not in any way suffered from the failure of the Commissioner to indicate the results of the enquiries mentioned above. Moreover, the assessee will have full opportunity of showing to the Income-tax Officer whether he had jurisdiction or not and whether the income assessed in the assessment orders which were originally passed was correct or not." Thus, the assessee will not be prejudiced even at the stage when fresh assessments are made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
