1998 (9) TMI 75 - HC - Wealth-tax

Assessing Officer empowered to refer asset valuation in reassessment proceedings under Wealth-tax Act

Union of India And Others Versus Ku. Vijaya Raje.

The High Court held that the Assessing Officer was competent to refer the valuation of assets to the Valuation Officer in reassessment proceedings under ... Wealth Tax, Valuation Of Assets Issues:Competency of Assessing Officer to make reference to Valuation Officer in reassessment proceedings under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.Analysis:The judgment in question revolves around the core issue of whether the Assessing Officer was competent to refer the valuation of assets to the Valuation Officer in reassessment proceedings under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The case stemmed from a series of writ petitions challenging the legality of such references made during reassessment proceedings. The controversy arose when the respondent contested the validity of the references and consequential notices issued by the Valuation Officer, arguing that such references were only permissible in original assessments and not in reassessment proceedings. The Revenue, on the other hand, justified the references under section 2(cb) by asserting that since the assessment included reassessment, the reference to the Valuation Officer was valid and competent.The High Court analyzed the provisions of sections 16A and 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, to determine the scope of the Assessing Officer's authority to make references to the Valuation Officer. Section 16A enables the Assessing Officer to refer the valuation of assets to the Valuation Officer for the purpose of making an assessment under the Act. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer's discretion to make such references was not limited to original assessments under section 16 but extended to any assessment under the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was deemed competent to refer the valuation of assets even in proceedings under section 17, which pertains to reassessment of chargeable net wealth that had escaped assessment.The court rejected the argument against multiplicity of references raised by the respondent's counsel, highlighting that the Assessing Officer's decision to refer to the Valuation Officer was subject to specific conditions and statutory duties. The court also criticized the lower court's reliance on previous judgments, clarifying that those cases were distinguishable and did not apply to the current scenario. Ultimately, the High Court held that the Assessing Officer was indeed competent to make the reference in question, and the resultant notice issued by the Valuation Officer was valid. The appeals were allowed, and the writ court's judgment was quashed, providing the assessee with the option to seek appropriate legal remedies against the orders of the Valuation Officer or the Assessing Officer if necessary.