Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. On behalf of the revenue, it was stated that the notices issued under s. 148 of the I.T. Act would not be pursued and in view of the statement section with the notices issued under s. 148 of the I.T. Act. In view of the statement of the revenue, the sole contention which survives for consideration in this petition is whether the notices served upon the petitioner under s. 17 of the W.T. Act are valid and legal.

6. Mr. Dastur, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, invited may attention to the provision of s. 17 of the W.T. Act. Section 17(1)(a) of the W.T. Act provides that where the WTO has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to file a return under s. 14 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment and, as a result of which, the net wealth chargeable to assessment escaped assessment, then it was open to the WTO at any time within eight years to reopen the assessment and proceed to assess or reassess the net wealth. Section 17(1)(b) of the W.T. Act enables the WTO to reopen the assessment within a period of four years in cases where in consequence of any information in his possession, the WTO has reason to believe that though there is no omission or failure, as referred in clause (a), still the net wealth chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any year, whether by reason of underassessment or assessment at too low a rate or otherwise. The learned counsel submitted that the provisions of this section clearly indicate that cls. (a) and (b) of s. 17(1) are independent of each other and the notices issued by the respondent-WTO did not state whether the action of reopening the assessment was proposed under s.17(1)(a) of under s. 17(1)(b) of the Act. It is undoubtedly true that the notice served upon the petitioner did not disclose whether the WTO proposed to take action under the provisions of s. 17(1)(a) or s. 17(1)(b) of the W.T. Act. On behalf of the revenue, a return was filed to the petition on March 21, 1979, and the return is sworn to by one Subray Laxminarayan Bhat, an ITO. This officer has neither issued the original assessment order, nor has issued the notices under s. 17 of W.T. Act, but he has sworn to the affidavit on the basis of the records in his possession. The learned counsel for the petitioner has several things to say in connection with this affidavit, but one need not go into all the grievances of the learned of the counsel as it is obvious from the contents of the return and especially from paras. 21, 23 and 26 that the WTO had issued the notice by relying upon the provisions of s. 17(1)(a) only. There is no reference in this return to the provisions of s. 17(1)(b) of the Act and the entire action taken by the revenue is dependent upon the satisfaction of the terms and conditions mentioned in s. 17(1)(a) of the W.T. Act.

10. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the returns filed by the petitioner in the respective years and especially on the annexure to the return which states that the assessable income of the petitioner was a share in the firm of M/s. Associated Lands and Development Corporation. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner wanted the WTO to assess the petitioner by relying upon the provisions of s. 7(2)(a) of the W.T. Act. Section 7 of the W.T. Act provides for determination of the value of the assets and 7(1) provides that subject to any rules made in this behalf, the value of any assets other than cash, shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the WTO it would fetch, if sold in the open market on the date of the valuation. The assessee has stated in the return that the lands held by the partnership concern cannot be sold in the open market on the date of the valuation in view of the land acquisition notices and the municipal requisition. The assessee, thereupon, requested the WTO to assess the value of the lands by reference to the provisions of s. 7(2)(a) of the W.T. Act. The said sub-section provided the where the assessed is carrying on a business for which accounts are maintained by him regularly, the WTO may determine the net value of the assets of the business having regard to the balance-sheet of such business on the date of valuation and making such adjustments therein as may be prescribed.

11. Mr. Dastur contended that in the return filed by the assessee, it was stated that the question of making adjustments as contemplated by the provisions of s. 7(2)(a) of the Act could be discussed on merits at the time of the hearing and it was obvious that the assessee desired that the WTO should determine the value of lands as contemplated under s. 7(2)(a). The learned counsel submitted that the assessee had made full and true disclosure of his assets which included immovable property at Valnai and the assessee was relying upon the balance-sheets in its possession. Mr. Dastur submitted that it was not necessary for the assessee to produce evidence in the shape of balance-sheet or any other material at the time of the filing of the return and it was open to the WTO to determine it before passing order of assessment. It is undoubtedly true that the WTO has got absolute powers to call upon the assessee to substantiate the contents of the return by reference to evidence in his possession and the WTO has also got the power to reject the evidence produced by the assessee. In the present case, the WTO held an enquiry under the provision of s. 16(3) of the W.T. Act and after making the enquiry found that the valuation mentioned by the assessee in its return was accurate and accepted the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his contention that nothing further is required to be done by the assessee and no material was suppressed from the WTO in the return filed by the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel is just and deserves to be accepted.

12. On behalf of the revenue reliance was placed upon two or three facts to support the order issued by the WTO under s. 17(1)(a) of the W.T. Act. As mentioned earlier, the revenue relies solely upon the provisions of s. 17(1)(a) of the Act and it is the case of the revenue that the assessee has not disclosed the true and material fats in its return and that fact has resulted in the escapement of the assessment for the relevant assessment years. Turning to the return filed on behalf of the revenue, I find that 4 grounds are made out in support of the notices issued by the WTO under s. 17 of the W.T. Act. In the first instance, it is stated that in the return submitted by the 4 assessees, i.e., the petitioner, his two brothers and their mother, no immovable property was shown. The statement is obviously inaccurate. On behalf of the revenue, the original returns filed by the petitioner, his two brothers and mother were produced in the court and those return clearly indicate that the annexures to each of the return contain this statement that the petitioner holds a share in the firm of M/s. Associated Lands and Development Corporation and the principal assets of the firm are lands. In view of this fact, is it difficult to appreciate how the officer made this statement in the return after perusing the records in his possession. Mr. Kotval, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, tried to defend the action of the officer by contending that what was suggested by the statement was that no reference was made to the immovable property in the column which is intended for stating and describing the immovable property. The suggestion of the learned counsel is undoubtedly brave, but it is impossible to conceive how the WTO proceeded to make the statement by relying upon such technicality. It is obvious that the statement made by the WTO in the return is wholly unwarranted and if the notices are issued under s. 17 of the Act placing reliance upon such material, then such notices deserve to be quashed.