9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cept the request of the concerned Commissioner for the following reasons. 2. The assessment year involved is 1972-73. Originally wealth-tax assessment was framed on 30th April, 1973 at a total wealth of Rs. 2,44,270 under s. 16(3). After the said assessment was framed the WTO on the basis of a complaint referred the matter to the official cell of valuation and got the same valued as on valuation date 31st March, 1974 and by theory of deduction came to the conclusion that valuation by him in original assessment was higher and be resorted of the said property which was accepted to proceedings under 17. When the issue travelled before the AAC, he accepted the contention of the assessee that the WTO had no jurisdiction in reopening the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year under consideration and initiated proceedings under s. 17 which are apparently under s. 17(1)(b), as observed by the AAC, as the appellant had disclosed all the particulars of his assets, it could not be under s. 17(1)(b) according to him. On this issue, the consistent view of this Bench has been that on the basis of subsequent valuation report assessment proceedings cannot be initiated". 5. Though the Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee on the basis of uncontroverted facts which finds place in para 4, yet the ld. departmental representative at the time of hearing of this R.A. pressed hard for grant of reference and relied on the cases of CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC) Avtar Singh Sindhu vs. WTO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, it is only in respect of a compliant which is not even supported by official cell valuation for the relevant date because it was valuation meant for 31st March., 1974 which was relied upon by the WTO. According to us, there is no such material fact which was not disclosed by the assessee. Coming to the case of Smt. Nirmala Birla and Others, again there is a distinction in facts and, if the said case is carefully gone through it supports the contention of the assessee. The Tribunal, however, discussed the law because it was cited by both the parities but its finding is mainly that of fact and secondly it is true that even on appreciation of case law on the issue, Bombay High Court's decision was relied which is based on the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
