9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d disclosed all primary and material facts to the Wealth-tax Officer and that the reopening of the assessment under section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was not warranted. The asset in question is the building in which the assessee had a share. The construction of the building was completed and the same was occupied in October, 1968. The valuation of the building was required to be made a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which showed the value different from the one declared by it. The Wealth-tax Officer and the Commissioner referred to the valuation report which had been submitted by a private valuer to the assessee in August, 1971, valuing the building at Rs. 35,70,814. That report, however, was not a report which the assessee was required to submit at the time of the assessment. That report was not regarding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee had disclosed all the primary and material facts. Any omission thereafter in correctly valuing the building was the omission of the Wealth-tax Officer and is not to be attributed to any failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose the relevant facts. Even after the completion of the assessment, the Wealth-tax Officer had the opportunity to reopen the assessment provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt not only at the time of assessment, but also within the period prescribed for reopening of assessments, even where there has been no failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose the material facts. If the Assessing Officers are not alert and allow the time to elapse they cannot thereafter, as a matter of course, seek to justify the reopening by casting the blame on the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
