TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 1981-82, in respect of their share of property in the firm. The assessment was made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Assessment) (presently designated as Deputy Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Assessment)), and certain additions in the valuation of the assets were made and assessment orders annexures A, A-1 and A-2 were passed. Against the said additions, the petitioners had filed appeals before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), Jabalpur, who confirmed the additions by orders annexures B, B-1 and B-2. However, on further appeal being filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur, against the orders of the first appellate authority, the additions made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Wealth- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to seek redressal of their grievance under the machinery provided in the Act and reference has also been made to sections 23, 24 and 25 of the Wealth-tax Act providing for appeals and revisions, in support of the contention that even if they feel aggrieved by the order that may be passed by the Assessing Officer, they have an opportunity of filing appeals and revisions as provided in the Act. In so far as the petitioners in M. P. No. 2637 of 1988 and M. P. No. 2671 of 1988 are concerned, since a pure question of law and jurisdiction is involved, the petitioners cannot be left to seek remedy provided under the Act and in any case, not at this distance of time in relation to the petitions which were filed long back in the year 1988. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in case it is found on that basis that the wealth chargeable to tax had escaped assessment by reason of underassessment or assessment at too low a rate or otherwise as provided in section 17(1)(b). Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CWT v. Smt. Gulnar Marfatia [1986] 159 ITR 311 and to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in K. M. Ramdas Prabhu v. First WTO [1987] 166 ITR 706, in support of his contention that where no proceedings are pending before the Wealth-tax Officer, it is not permissible to make a reference to the Valuation Officer under section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and the report of the Valuation Officer cannot form the basis for reassessment pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assets of the partnership firm was assessed on the basis of the aforesaid valuation report. On the basis of information in the possession of the Assessing Officer, the value of the interest of the petitioner in the assets of the partnership firm was much more than shown and assessed and, therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment years mentioned in the petition." It is clear from the statement made by the respondents that it was only in the later assessment years that the Assessing Officer had made a reference under section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act to the Valuation Officer for ascertaining the fair market value for the purposes of the wealth-tax. In the decision of the Raja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cember, 1984. In so far as the petitions M. P. Nos. 2637 and 2671 of 1988 are concerned, assessment was made for the periods 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 and since the valuation report, even as per the return of the respondents, relates to the valuation dates December, 1981, to December, 1984, and can have no relevance to the previous years relating to these assessment years in which the last such date could at the most be March 31, 1981, the valuation report could otherwise not have furnished any basis for reopening the assessment for the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 on the ground that on the basis of the said report, the net wealth chargeable to tax had escaped assessment or had been underassessed or assessed at too low a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctuous and the petition was dismissed and likewise the petitions M. P. Nos. 3591 and 3638 both of 1989 were dismissed as withdrawn. Learned counsel for the respondents has invited my attention to a recent order dated April 19, 1999, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur, passed in similar cases of other partners of the firm in support of his contention that since other partners have pursued the remedy available under the Act in respect of the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84, these petitioners should also be left to seek the same remedy. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, urged that apart from the fact that the report had been called for not in any pending assessment, since the belief about escapement of assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
