TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he flat. Merely because the valuation can be arrived at by some other method does not mean that the assessee has not truly and correctly disclosed all material facts required to be disclosed by him and in such a situation the Tribunal has found by the impugned judgment that there was no further information made available to the Wealth-tax Officer for reopening of the case and there is no material on record to show that the assessee did not fully disclose the material facts which led to escapement or undervaluation of wealth or the wealth was assessed at a lower figure. This apart, the audit report could not form the basis for invoking the provisions of section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act. In such situation in answer to questions Nos. (b) and (c) we hold that the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal filed by the Department and maintaining the order of the appellate authority. We do not find any merit in these appeals. Hence, all the appeals, stand dismissed on the merits as well as on the ground of maintainability with no order as to costs. - HON'BLE SUBHASH SAMWATSAR AND A.P. SHRIVASTAVA, JJ. For the Appellant : R. D. Jain with Ku. Shraddha Dubey For the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all these appeals were dismissed by a common order dated November 30, 1998. Hence, the present appeals have been filed. 5. Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeals. According to him the total tax effect in every appeal is around Rs. 2,000. He invited the attention of this court to notification issued under section 10 of the Wealth-tax Act, which provides that appeal could be preferred to the High Court in cases where a debt of wealth-tax does not exceed Rs. 25,000. He invited the attention of this court to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Zoeb Y. Topiwala [2006] 284 ITR 379; [2005] 199 CTR 656 wherein the Bombay High Court has held that the directions issued by the Board dated March 27, 2000, directing the Department not to raise questions of law where the tax effect is less than Rs. 2 lakhs is binding on the Revenue. The appeal which was filed having tax effect less than Rs. 7,000 was dismissed as not maintainable by the Bombay High Court by holding that the directions issued by the Board are binding on the Department. 6. The next case relied upon by him is in the case of CIT v. Cameo Colour Co. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r reference to the High Court. It is true that once this High Court formulated the questions with a direction to the Tribunal to send a statement of fact for decision on the said questions the said judgment cannot be said to have attained finality but still it cannot be said that the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside by the High Court. 9. As regards questions Nos. (b) and (c) framed by this court the gist of the questions is whether the proceedings under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act are justified. For this purpose it is necessary for this court to first refer to section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act. The relevant portions of the said section read as under: 17. Wealth escaping assessment.-(l) If the Assessing Officer (a) has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of any person to make a return under section 14 of his net wealth or the net wealth of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act for any assessment year or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of his net wealth or the net wealth of such other person for that year, the net wealth chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he material facts to exercise the powers under section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act that the Wealth-tax Officer has any information in his possession to show that the property was valued too low to escape the assessment to exercise powers under section 17(1)(b). 13. Shri R. D. Jain, learned senior advocate, appearing for the appellant relied upon a judgment of the apex court in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456; [1993] 4 SCC 77, wherein the apex court has construed the words reasons to believe . The apex court has held that the words reasons to believe are based on specific, reliable and relevant information subsequently received by the Assessing Officer, which tends to expose untruthfulness or inadequacy of the material disclosed by the assessee on the basis of which the original assessment was based. There is no dispute about this proposition. The question is whether the Wealth-tax Officer has any information in his possession which tends to expose untruthfulness or inadequacy of the material disclosed. These sections are also considered by the apex court in the case of CIT v. Corporation Bank Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 791. In that case the assessee-bank h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
