TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment year 1968-69 on January 17, 1969. The 1/4th share of the immovable properties was valued at Rs. 1,55,000 and in support of this valuation an authorised valuation report dated January 25, 1969, was filed. The petitioner filed his wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1969-70 on November 16, 1969, and the properties were valued at Rs. 1,52,250. It is required to be stated that the valuation of properties for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 were less than what was valued for the subsequent years. The respondent No. 1, the WTO, considered the returns for four years, that is, from assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70 together and the assessments were completed by an order dated May 3, 1971. The respondent No. 1 accepted the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsequent years. The respondent No. 1 states in the return in para. 16 that after the completion of the assessment for the relevant four years, the WTO secured information from the valuation report dated July 12, 1972, prepared by the Executive Engineer (Valuation) of the I.T. department, Bombay, that the properties were not properly valued by the petitioner and, therefore, escaped proper assessment. It is the claim of the respondents that the notices were served on the petitioner to reopen the assessment under s. 17(1)(b) of the W.T. Act, 1957. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended, and in my judgment rightly, that the action of the respondents in threatening to re-open the assessment under s. 17(1)(b) is entirely illegal and misc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer has reason to believe from information in his possession that the earlier orders escaped the net wealth chargeable to tax. Mere change of opinion of the succeeding officer is not enough and especially when before passing the assessment order the officer could have easily ascertained the correctness of the statements made in the return. In the present case, the only information available with the respondent No. 1 is a valuation report dated July 12, 1972. The mere fact that the two valuers have given conflicting reports about the true value of the properties is not sufficient to re-open the assessment under s. 17(1)(b) of the W.T. Act. In my judgment, the action of respondent No. 1 in the present case is totally erroneous and responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
