9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (6) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t form part of the record or proceedings before the WTO at the time the latter passed the orders of assessment. 2. That inasmuch as the orders of assessment passed by the WTO on 3-3-1979 were in breach of section 16A(6) of the Act, they were without jurisdiction and void ab initio and non est in law and, consequently, the CWT could have no jurisdiction to exercise his power under section 25(2) of the Act to revise such an order which is non est and void ab initio. 3. That the CWT erred in stating that the assessment orders have been made by the WTO without considering whether the value of certain properties, declared by the assessee, was correct having regard to the nature of properties, etc., and without making necessary enquiries. That, on the other hand, the WTO, while completing the assessments, in question, had taken into consideration all the relevant material necessary for valuation and had acted in accordance with law in accepting the value returned by the assessee as per the valuation made by the Registered Valuers. Finally, it is urged that since the CWT bad erroneously assumed jurisdiction under section 25(2) with reference to the valuation reports of the departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sments before receipt of the report of the Valuation Officer, and this was also erroneous. The Commissioner, therefore, issued to the assessee-HUF a notice calling upon it to show cause why assessments, which have not been made in accordance with the law and on proper facts, should not be set aside and the WTO be directed to make a fresh assessment. In response to this notice, it was contended before the CWT that completion of a wealth-tax assessment by the WTO in breach of the mandatory provisions of section 16A(6) does not give rise to a presumption that the WTO had adopted the value without considering the other aspects of the valuation ; submissions were also made as to the merits of the valuation. 3.2 The Commissioner considered these submissions and came to the following conclusions : (i) That the WTO having made a reference under section 16A(1) of the Act in respect of the immovable property situated at Kochrab, Ahmedabad (in which the assessee holds 1/4th share), it was incumbent on the WTO to complete the assessment only after receipt of the report from the Department's Valuation Officer, as required by section 16A(6) of the Act, and that the failure of the WTO to do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld have remedied the alleged under-assessment by recourse to either section 17(1)(b) or even to section 35 of the Act. (iii) That the WTO had, while making the assessments, fully applied his mind to the valuation report furnished by the assessee and, therefore, the Commissioner was not justified in stating that the WTO had made the assessments without considering the relevant aspects of the valuation and in a ' routine and stereotype manner '. (iv) That since reference under section 16A(1) was already made by the WTO, the assessments completed by him before receiving the valuation report of the departmental valuer must be treated as the assessments made without jurisdiction and if the assessments them selves were made without jurisdiction, the Commissioner could not assume jurisdiction under section 25(2) to revise such assessment orders. 5. Proceeding further, Shri Dastur submitted that, as the WTO completed the wealth-tax assessments in question, on 3-3-1979 without waiting for the valuation report of the department's valuer, because the said assessments would be barred by limitation on 31-3-1979. he, therefore, had no alternative but to complete the assessments in the mann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceed under section 33B of the 1922 Act (which is in pari materia with section 263 of the Income-tax Act and section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act), is not dependent on the fulfilment of any condition precedent. All that he is required to do, before reaching his decision and not before commencing the enquiry, is that he must give the assessee an opportunity of being heard and make or cause to make such enquiry as he deems necessary----CIT v. Electro House [1971] 82 ITR 824 (SC). It goes without saying that such enquiries may bring forth facts and evidence to justify action under section 25(2). (2) The second proposition advanced by Shri Dastur assumes that the action under section 35 or section 17(1)(b) by the WTO and action under section 25(2) of the CWT are mutually exclusive. Shri Dastur did not refer to any specific provision of law in this behalf, nor did he cite any case law under the 1961 Act on the point. He, however, referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Manordas Kalidas v. CST [1969] 24 STC 521. That decision, it may be pointed out, is clearly distinguish able inasmuch as, in that case, the Court found, as a matter of fact, that the Assistant Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment's valuation report." (4) This brings us to the last and, apparently, the most important argument on behalf of the assessee ; for it is indeed a serious legal infirmity in the wealth-tax assessments made by the WTO in this case that the WTO who had referred the valuation of the assessee's immovable properties to the Department's Valuation Officer, hastened nevertheless to complete the relevant assessments without waiting for the valuation report of the Valuation Officer, as required under section 16A(6). This legal infirmity, in our opinion, far from militating against the action of the Commissioner under section 25(2) justifies and strengthens it ; for, an assessment made without proper jurisdiction, is liable to be challenged by the assessee as not valid in law and in this sense it is certainly prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This aspect of the revisional powers of the Commissioner is explained by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and the revisional order passed by the Commissioner has been upheld in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi. As a matter of fact, the Commissioner in passing his order under section 25(2), in the present case, has rightly relied on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgument is untenable for the simple reason that the revisional powers of the Commissioner, which are intended to remedy the orders of his subordinates which are erroneous insofar as they are prejudicial to the interests of revenue, are wide and entitle him to ' pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling it and directing a fresh assessment '. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position explained above, we uphold the orders under section 25(2) passed by the Commissioner for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75, in the case of the assessee and dismiss the appeals. Before parting with this case, we may mention the last submission of Shri Dastur that, if at all, the assessment orders of the WTO were prejudicial to the assessee and not to the revenue. This argument is also untenable because the assessee, who maintains that the valuation submitted by him was a correct valuation, cannot plead that there was prejudice to him if the assessment is made on the basis of such valuation. 8. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Wealth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
