9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce under art 226 of the Constitution. All that has happened at this juncture is the issuance of a show-cause notice jurisdiction under art. 226 may, in a given case, warrant interference even at such a stage. There is no single litmus test in that behalf. But, in the facts here and considering the materials presently existing, it is difficult to hold that the WTO here had no reason to believe, within the meaning of s. 17 of the Act, that the net wealth chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1976-77 had escaped assessment and had, therefore, no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. Indeed, to the contrary. The valuation report dated 23rd January, 1978, obtained by the assessee himself for the very next succeeding assessment year 1977 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court, Board's Circular letter No. 319/12/74-W.T. dated 5th April, 1974, under which the aforesaid para. 3(b) of the Board's earlier Circular No. 3(WT) dated 28th September, 1957, stood withdrawn. Reliance placed on the earlier circular could thus be of no avail. The assessee's learned counsel next relied upon two decisions: (a) Tulsidas Kilachand v. D. R. Chawla [1980] 122 ITR 458 (Bom) and (b) Brig. B. Lall v. WTO [1981] 127 ITR 308 (Raj). Qua Tulsidas Kilachand's case [1980] 122 ITR 458 (Bom), the valuation report relied upon for reopening the assessment therein was one prepared by the I.T. Department's own Executive Engineer (Valuation). Not so here where the valuation report is the one obtained by the assessee himself and the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, after acceptance of the valuation by a registered valuer and simply for the purpose of finding out whether his own suspicion, that the completed assessment was based on an undervaluation, was or was not correct, and thus to enable him to create ground or foundation for a reasonable belief or information under s. 17(1) of the Act. Altogether different indeed is the position here. There is no resort here to any valuation report called for under s. 16A of the Act nor any recourse to any audit opinion or objection. Here, on the other hand, as already seen, is a case where it is the assessee's own valuation report and the assessee's own sale transaction that constitute the crux. The Rajasthan ruling has thus no application to the facts here. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
