9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to the notice issued under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, seeking to reopen the assessment for the year 1975-76. Detailed Analysis: The petitioner filed a return of wealth-tax disclosing total wealth taxable at Rs. 1,95,906, including shares of Continental Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Basi Agriculture Farm. The Wealth-tax Officer accepted the declared value of movable property, including the shares. However, a notice under section 17 was issued based on the break-up value of the shares from the balance-sheet of Continental Construction Pvt. Ltd., alleging an escapement of wealth from assessment. The main contention was whether the petitioner had disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment, as required by section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act. The petitioner argued that he had provided all relevant information, including the company name, number of shares, and their value at face value of Rs. 100 each. The court emphasized that the assessee must disclose primary and material facts within their knowledge to enable the assessing officer to make an assessment. In this case, the petitioner had fulfilled this obligation by providing essential details about the shares held. Furthermore, the court referred to previous judgments where it was established that mere inaccuracies in valuation or failure to apply correct valuation rules did not amount to non-disclosure of material facts. The court held that it was the duty of the assessing officer to apply the law correctly based on the disclosed facts, and discrepancies in valuation did not warrant the issuance of a notice under section 17(1)(a). The court highlighted that the petitioner's duty was to disclose facts, not the law, and the assessing officer was responsible for applying the correct legal provisions. Drawing parallels to a similar case, the court concluded that the petitioner had indeed disclosed primary and material facts necessary for assessment, and therefore, the notice issued under section 17(1)(a) was invalid. The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned notice dated February 25, 1984, under section 17(1)(a) without any order as to costs.
|
