TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 88-89/280 dt.28th March, 1989, and this office letter No. 422 dt.21st July, 1987, received in their office on8th Dec., 1987. The assessment for asst. yr. 1986-87 for wealth-tax to be modified accordingly consequent upon the report of DVO as stated above." 3. The order under s. 16A(5) dt.5th Feb., 1991, was received by the Assessing Officer (AO) on6th Feb., 1991, wherein the said property was valued at Rs. 1,66,88,000. Consequent upon the said order under s. 16A(5), the assessment was reopened vide ordersheet entry dt.12th March, 1991, and notice under s. 17 was duly served. In response to the said notice under s. 17, the assessee filed return of wealth showing the net wealth at Rs. Nil. Vide letter dt.10th Aug., 1991, the assessee's Chartered Accountant, Anil Kumar Chopra, contended that reopening of the assessment under s. 17 on the basis of the valuation report of the Valuation Officer (VO) received after the assessment was not justified. It was urged that the valuation report of the VO received after assessment or mere change of opinion regarding the valuation did not justify the reassessment under s. 17. Reliance was placed on the judgments in the cases of Tulsidas Kilachand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment and the issue of notice under s. 17 dt.11th March, 1991, stating that the assessment was completed earlier under s. 16(3)/17 on27th March, 1990, on the basis of the returns filed along with the report of the approved valuer when the said valuation was accepted by the AO. The subsequent reopening of the assessment under s. 17(1)(a) cannot be valid as the assessee's case did not fall under the circumstances mentioned in s. 17(1)(a). It was also contended that reopening under s. 17(1)(b) was not valid as reference to the VO under s. 16A(5) was not valid and that the valuation report was not an information as contemplated under s. 17(1)(b). It was stated that the valuation report of the VO amounts to mere change of opinion and in support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the judgment in the cases of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC)) and (1) Gulabrai Hanumanbux Anr., (2) Keshoram Radheshyam Anr. vs. WTO (1989) 78 CTR (Gau) 18 : (1989) 178 ITR 519 (Gau). The AO was asked to give a report on the factual position in respect of the arguments taken by the assessee before the CWT(A). From the AO's report and also the records, the CWT(A) f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved from the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Tulsidas Kilachand vs. D.R. Chawla (1980) 122 ITR 458 (Bom). SLP filed was also dismissed by the Supreme Court (1983) 141 ITR (St) 47. In view of the above facts and circumstances and also the case laws cited on the subject, the reopening of the assessment by the AO under s. 17 and the consequent assessment order are not valid. The assessment order is, therefore, annulled." The Revenue is aggrieved over this and hence the Revenue's appeal. 7. The Departmental Representative filed a paper book of 7 pages containing, inter alia, the valuation report of the VO dt.5th Feb., 1991, and the photostat copy of the order-sheet entry dt.12th March, 1991, containing the reasons for issuing notice under s. 17. The arguments of the Departmental Representative were to the following effect: The AO by his letter dt.7th Dec., 1987, made a reference under s. 16A to the DVO requesting him to estimate the value of the land and building as on31st March, 1984,31st March, 1985and31st March, 1986. On that date, IT assessments of the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87 were also pending. Hence, reference to the DVO under s. 16A wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aria vs. CWT (1989) 79 CTR (Cal) 28 : (1990) 185 ITR 233 (Cal), V.K. Jain vs. WTO (1992) 193 ITR 89 (All), Laxmi Devi Jain vs. WTO (1992) 193 ITR 154 (All), CWT vs. Shriniwas Sharma (1993) 204 ITR 587 (Raj). For the asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86, the WT returns were filed on11th Nov., 1987. That too, for the asst. yr. 1984-85, the return was filed in response to notice under s. 14(2) of the WT Act. It can be said that reference under s. 16A was valid only with reference to the asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86. Further, in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment for the asst. yr. 1986-87, it was not mentioned by the AO whether the reopening was being done under s. 17(1)(a) or s. 17(1)(b). Hence, the reopening is not valid. The CWT(A) has fully discussed about the non-applicability of s. 17(1)(a) and 17(1)(b) in the present assessee's case and came to the conclusion that the reopening of the assessment under s. 17 and the consequent assessment order dt.5th Feb., 1993, are not valid. His order is to be upheld. 9. We have considered the rival submissions, case law cited and perused the papers filed before us. The notice under s. 17 given at page 56 of the assessee's paper bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
