9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (11) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturn of wealth and the words "duplicate return" was mentioned at the top of it. After the said return was filed, the WTO had completed the assessment on 28th March, 1980 under s. 16-(3) of the said Act. The assessee went up in appeal before the AAC and set up a variety of grounds relating to the inclusion of some assets in his net wealth. Subsequently, an additional ground was also raised to the effect that the WTO has erred in framing the assessment on the notice under s. 17 of the Act without disposing of the return filed under s. 14 (wrongly mentioned as 34) without and as such the entire proceedings are invalid ab initio. The AAC found favour with that ground and following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in CIT vs. Rachhorda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the WT Act, in as much as no reason have been recorded by him, for admitting additional evidence nor any opportunity had been provided to the WTO to rebut the additional evidence so filed. On the other hand, Shri R. S. Gupta appearing on behalf of the assessee, has contended that the original return was already on record of the WTO and as such, no additional evidence has been adduced before the AAC. On consideration of the rival contentions, we find force in what has been contended on behalf of the Revenue. It is borne out from the orders of the AAC that photostat copies of the receipt were filed by the assessee before him. In the assessment order relating to the asst. yr. 1977-78, the WTO has categorically made a mention of the fact th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argued that the limitation for framing the assessment relating to the asst. yr. 1975-76 was upto 31st March 1980 and the assessment for the asst. yr. 1977-78 could be completed by 31st March 1982. The assessments in question had been completed within that time limit. As per the assessee, the returns filed after issue of the notice under s. 17 of the Act are the duplicate returns of the originals already filed. It was therefore, contended that the duplicate returns are as good as the original returns and it was open to the WTO to complete the assessments on the basis of the so called duplicate returns. He has also pointed out that in completing the assessment, the WTO did not have recourse to the provisions of s. 17 of the WT Act and as such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer was completing the assessment having recourse to the provisions of s. 17 of the Act. On the other hand, it is specially mentioned in the assessment orders that the assessment is being made under s. 16(3) of the Act. In these circumstances, the fact that a notice had been issued to the assessee under s. 17 of the Act is of little consequence. 9. Shri Gupta has vehemently argued that since the assessment had not been framed in pursuance of the returns originally filed and it was not open to the WTO to issue a notice under s. 17 of the Act and as such, the issue of such notice is invalid. There appears force in that contention. In that view, we find support from CIT vs. Ranchhordas Karsondas, on which reliance has been pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
