Court deems Wealth-tax Officer's post-assessment reference irregular and without jurisdiction. Initiation of proceedings quashed.

The court found that the Wealth-tax Officer's reference under Section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, after the completion of assessments for the relevant years, was irregular and without jurisdiction. Relying on precedents, the court held that such a reference could only be made during pending assessments or reassessments. Consequently, the court deemed the initiation of proceedings wrongful and quashed the reference under Section 16A, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reference u/s 16A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
2. Jurisdiction of the Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) to make a reference for valuation after the completion of assessments.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Reference u/s 16A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957:
The petitioner contended that the reference made by the WTO u/s 16A was wrongful, without jurisdiction, illegal, and void. The assessments for the years 1969-70 to 1972-73 had already been completed, and there was no pending assessment for which the valuation could be referred. The petitioner argued that the reference was made with ulterior motives to reopen proceedings based on fresh valuation evidence.

2. Jurisdiction of the Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) to Make a Reference for Valuation After the Completion of Assessments:
The court examined the provisions of Section 16A, which allows the WTO to refer the valuation of any asset to a Valuation Officer "for the purpose of making an assessment." The court noted that this section could only be invoked during the pendency of an assessment or reassessment. Since the assessments for the relevant years were already completed, the WTO had no jurisdiction to make a reference for valuation. The court cited precedents, including Brig. B. Lall v. WTO and Onkarji Kusturchand v. WTO, which supported the view that a reference u/s 16A could not be made after the completion of assessments.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the initiation of the proceedings by the WTO was irregular, wrongful, and without jurisdiction. The rule was made absolute, and the reference u/s 16A was quashed. There was no order for costs.

---