9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Reopening of assessment under section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 based on valuation of a building for wealth tax assessment. Analysis: The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed all primary and material facts to the Wealth-tax Officer, and the reopening of the assessment under section 17(1)(a) was unwarranted. The building in question, of which the assessee had a share, was completed in October 1968, and its valuation was required as of December 31, 1970. The assessee valued the building at Rs. 22,93,650, which was accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer in the original assessment completed on February 19, 1972. However, the assessment was reopened, and a new valuation of Rs. 52,61,500 was determined on July 28, 1977, later reduced to Rs. 50,00,000 by the Commissioner on appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not possess any material showing a different value from what was declared. Although a valuation report valuing the building at Rs. 35,70,814 was submitted by a private valuer in August 1971, it was not required for the assessment and was not relevant to the valuation date. The Wealth-tax Officer believed the declared value was incorrect but did not propose a different value initially or in reassessment. The Tribunal rightly concluded that any omission in valuing the building was the Officer's, not the assessee's, failure to disclose facts fully and truly. The Tribunal emphasized that the statute distinguishes between underassessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose facts and other cases. Merely underassessment does not justify invoking section 17(1)(a). Assessing Officers must be vigilant not just during assessment but also within the prescribed time for reopening, even without the assessee's failure to disclose facts. The responsibility lies with the Officer to accept disclosed facts or make their own estimates for assessment purposes. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that section 17(1)(a) was not applicable in this case. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of Assessing Officers' vigilance and the assessee's duty to disclose primary facts, not suppress material information, leaving the Officer to accept or estimate amounts for assessment. This judgment clarifies the distinction between the responsibilities of the assessee and the Assessing Officer in wealth tax assessments and underscores the importance of full and truthful disclosure by the assessee and vigilance by the Officer to avoid unwarranted reassessments based on underassessment alone.
|
