9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the basis of the following 'reasons recorded', the WTO reopened the assessment under section 17(1)(a) of the Act, on the basis that the net wealth chargeable to tax had escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment: "The assessments under the Wealth-tax Act have already been completed in this case for the years indicated below. The net wealth assessed includes value of property 365 Harrisganj, Kanpur. The relevant data is as under: Assessment Total net wealth Value of Remarks year assessed H. No. 365 Rs. Rs. 1964-65 3,61,021 57,013 As per 5 (five) of the return the value as shown in the following works : 365 Harrisganj, Kanpur (as per books) . . . Rs. 57,013 1965-66 3,91,132 54,162 As per 5 (five) of the return the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment for the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. Issue notice under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67 and 1967-68. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle IV, Kanpur." In pursuance of the notice under section 17, the assessee furnished a wealth-tax return on 13-7-1973 'without prejudice and under protest' and declared the same wealth as was the assessed wealth according to the original assessment. The reassessment was completed by the WTO in respect of the immovable properties as for the assessment year 1970-71. 3. In appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that on the original assessment was made, the assessee had disclosed all material facts regarding the existence, status, nature of the property and mode of valuation shown in the return and that simply because the assessee had furnished a valuation report in a subsequent assessment year, the WTO could not have bona fide reason to believe that wealth liable to tax had escaped assessment simply because he felt that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of jewellery. He pointed out that the reopening of the assessment was, therefore, the result of a mere change of opinion. Reliance was also placed by him on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Brig. B. Lall as also on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Rasiklal Jivanlal Shah v. ITO [1982] 133 ITR 476. He, therefore, strongly supported the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We have considered the rival submissions as also the decisions referred to above. Though in the reassessment notice, the WTO merely mentioned section 17 and did not mention whether it was under clause (a) or under clause (b), it is clear from a perusal of the last but one para of the reasons recorded referred to above that the WTO purported to reopen the assessment on the ground of omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee was purported to be opened under section 17(1)(a) and not under section 17(1)(b). This is also amply clear from the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). We have, therefore, to see whether there was any omission or fail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion date (i.e., 31-12-1967) a valuation report had been filed showing a higher value, an inference could not be drawn that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts at the time of the original assessment. In the case of Brig. B. Lall, the assessee had, in the original proceedings, been assessed on the basis of an approved valuer's report and the assessment was completed. Reassessment proceedings were commenced there on the basis of the report of the Valuation Officer called for under section 16A of the Act and certain audit objection. The case was considered both under clause (a) as well as under clause (b) and on those facts it was held that there was no provision to refer the question of the valuation of a property, in a completed assessment, after acceptance of the valuation by a registered valuer and that simply for the purpose of finding out whether his own suspicion that the completed assessment was based on a undervaluation was or was not correct, could not make for the WTO a ground or foundation for a reasonable belief or information under section 17(1). The facts of the present case are not the same as the facts in the above case. Similarly, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
