TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng escapement of wealth chargeable to tax and who subsequently continued the proceedings under section 17 of the Act and whether they authority in law to do so. In our opinion, these issues are very vital and since these issues are not been adjudicated by the CWT(A), we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the CWT(A) and remand the question of validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 to the CWT(A) for fresh consideration, after due opportunity of being heard afforded to the assessee. - WTA Nos.13 to 15/Bang/2018 and 19/Bang/2018, WTA Nos.16 to 18/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 13-11-2019 - Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member And Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member For the Revenue : Shri C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. For the Respondent : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate ORDER PER BENCH WTA Nos. 13 to 15/Bang/2018 and 19/Bang/2018 are appeals filed by an assessee by name Shri R. N. Shashank against 4 different orders all dated 22.11.2017 of the CWT(A)-1, Bengaluru, relating to Assessment Years 2008-09 to 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may proceed to assess or reassess such net wealth and also any other net wealth chargeable to tax in respect of which such person is assessable, which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section for the assessment year concerned. Second Proviso to Sec.17(1) provides that the Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this sub-section, record his reasons for doing so. Clause (a) to Explanation 1 to Sec.17 lays down that where no return of net wealth has been furnished by the assessee although his net wealth or the net wealth of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act on the valuation date exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to wealth-tax , it shall be a case of escapement to tax of net wealth chargeable to tax. 5. The AO issued notice u/s.17 of the Act for all the AYs 2008-09 to 2011-12 in the case of R.N.Shashank and for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 in the case of R.N.Nirmala. R. N. Shashank as well as R. N. Nirmala. In the case of both the assessees, notice under section 17 of the Act dated 19.06.2014 calling upon both the assessees to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11 in the case of both the assesses, the AO brought to tax the value of the property at Sarakki Village and in the assessment of R. N. Shashank for Assessment Year 2011-12, the AO brought to tax the value of the industrial land at Dasanapura Hobli. 9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the CWT(A). The contention of both the Assessees before the CWT(A) was that notices u/s. 17 of the Act has been issued by the erstwhile ACIT, Circle-9(1), Bangalore, who did not have jurisdiction over the case of the appellant since the appellant was regularly borne on the records of the erstwhile ACIT, Circle-8(1), Bangalore, at the relevant point of time. In support of the said position, the Assessees copies of the acknowledgement for filing the income tax returns for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 and it was contended that from those returns it would be clear that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the Assessees at the relevant point of time was the erstwhile ACIT, Circle-8(1), Bangalore and not the erstwhile ACIT, Circle-9(1), Bangalore. It was submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by furnishing further information as sought by the AO. A perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO clearly brings out the reason to believe that wealth chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and there are sufficient material before the AO to take action u/s 17 of the Wealth tax Act. Considering the same, I am of the view that the detailed ground of objections taken in grounds No.2 and 3 have no merit and the case laws cited by the appellant in support, stand distinguished. 11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the CWT(A), the assessee has raised ground Nos.2 and 3 before the Tribunal which is common in all these appeals, which reads as follows:- 2. The order of assessment founded on the invalid notice issued u/s. 17 of the Act by the non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer is bad in law and void ab-initio since the very initiation of the assessment proceedings is opposed to law and therefore, the entire proceedings stands vitiated and require to be annulled. 3. The order of re-assessment is bad in law for want of requite jurisdiction as the mandatory requirements to assume jurisdiction u/s 17 of the Act, have not been compli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
