9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenging ex-parte assessments, legality of notices under s. 16(4), validity of initiation of proceedings under s. 17(1)(a), adequacy of time given for compliance, compliance with notices under s. 17(1)(a), justification for best judgment assessment, onus on assessing officer, non-cooperative attitude of assessee, setting aside AAC's order, directing fresh adjudication. Analysis: The judgment involves 9 second appeals against a common order passed by the AAC related to assessments under the Wealth Tax Act for various assessment years. The WTO had passed identical orders under s. 16(5), assessing total wealth at Rs. 5,00,000 due to non-compliance by the assessee. The first appeal resulted in a reduction of assessed wealth by Rs. 2,00,000 for each year. The legality of ex-parte assessments, initiation of proceedings under s. 17(1)(a), and the adequacy of notices under s. 16(4) were challenged. The contention was that the initiation of proceedings lacked material and the notices were illegal and inadequate. The Tribunal dismissed the argument that ex-parte assessments were illegal due to non-compliance with notices under s. 17(1)(a), as failure to make a return justified such assessments under s. 16(5. However, the Tribunal acknowledged that non-compliance with notices under s. 16(4) did not necessarily invalidate the assessment. The onus was on the assessing officer to justify assessments, considering the assessee's non-cooperative attitude. The Tribunal emphasized that once best judgment assessment was made, non-cooperation should not influence the assessment. The Tribunal upheld the WTO's action in resorting to ex-parte assessments but directed the AAC to decide the appeals afresh. The AAC was instructed to analyze the facts for fixing the taxable wealth for each year and to consider the initiation of proceedings under s. 17(1)(a). The Tribunal treated the appeals as partly allowed for statistical purposes, pending fresh adjudication on the initiation of proceedings and determining the assessable wealth for each year. The order vacated the AAC's decision but maintained the ex-parte assessments, ensuring a thorough reevaluation of the issues at hand.
|
