TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment proceedings. - - - - - Dated:- 18-3-2004 - Judge(s) : N. K. SUD., HEMANT GUPTA. JUDGMENT N.K. SUD J. - The assessee has filed this appeal under section 27A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957(for short the "Act"), against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, "F" Bench, New Delhi (for short the "Tribunal"), dated January 16, 2002. Before adverting to the dispute, the relevant facts may first be noted. The original assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1991-92 was finalised under section 16(3) of the Act on the total wealth of Rs. 18,00,000 vide order dated February 11, 1992. Thereafter, it came to the notice of the Assessing Officer that taxable wealth of the assessee had escaped assessment on account of und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alth of Rs. 29,33,800 by adding the amount of Rs. 11,68,750 representing the difference in value of the property in question. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) against the reassessment order which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal which has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated January 16, 2002. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, learned counsel for the appellant, did not dispute the fact that while computing the valuation of the property under Schedule III to the Act, the gross maintainable rent in respect of the property in question had been adopted at Rs. 22,000 which represented rent for two months only and not rent for the whole year. Thu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It also stands proved that the assessee had not correctly disclosed the net maintainable rent which is the basis for computation of value of the property. In the computation of wealth filed along with the return, it had not been disclosed that the net maintainable rent in respect of the property in question was only for two months and not for the whole year. The assessee, therefore, cannot claim to have made true and full disclosure of the material facts necessary for his assessment. We also do not find any merit in the other objections raised against the validity of the notice dated March 4, 1994, under section 17 of the Act. The earlier notice under section 17 issued by the Assessing Officer on July 22, 1993, was admittedly not a valid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
