TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner declared the value of the aforesaid agricultural land and BIR at Rs. 70,820 as on March 31, 1970, which was the relevant valuation date for the assessment year 1970-71. The petitioner contends that the valuation was declared by him on the basis of the report of an approved valuer. The valuation was accepted by the Department and the assessment of the petitioner to wealth-tax for the assessment year 1970-71 was made on the basis of that valuation. For the assessment year 1971-72, the valuation of the land in question made by the petitioner on the basis of the valuation made for the assessment year 1970-71 was accepted by the Department. On August 16, 1971, the petitioner sold 168 bighas of BIR for Rs. 16,000, and on March 15, 1972, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the land and the assessment orders were passed. It is contended that there was failure and omission on the part of the petitioner in disclosing the value of the agricultural land fully and truly and hence the impugned notices are not without jurisdiction. Along with the return a copy of the order passed by the WTO recording reasons for reopening the assessment has been filed and in that order, it is stated that as the value shown by the assessee was too low on account of omission and failure on the Part of the assessee to disclose material facts, the petitioner was underassessed. A question similar to the one arising in this case came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court in Prabha Rajya Lakshmi v. WTO [1983] 144 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , there was no failure on her part which would entitle the WTO take recourse to s. 17(1)(a) of the Act for reopening the assessments." Learned counsel for the Department was unable to point out as to why the ratio of the aforesaid decision would not be attracted in this case. In view of the aforesaid decision, it must be held that the petitioner having placed all the primary facts before the WTO with regard to the value of the agricultural land, recourse to s. 17(1)(a) of the Act by the WTO for reopening the assessments in question was not justified. The petition is, therefore, allowed and notices issued by respondent No. 1 the WTO, under s. 17 of the Act for reopening the assessment for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 (annexur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
