1996 (4) TMI 150 - AT - Wealth-tax

Reassessment invalidated due to improper notice issuance; appeals dismissed.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX. Versus MUKESH STEEL (P) LTD.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX. Versus MUKESH STEEL (P) LTD. - TTJ 060, 252, Issues Involved:1. Deduction of proportionate liabilities.2. Validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act.3. Validity of notices issued under Section 17.Detailed Analysis:1. Deduction of Proportionate Liabilities:The assessee, a private limited company, included the value of a car in its net wealth and deducted proportionate liabilities for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially accepted the returned wealth but later found that the assessee was not entitled to such deductions as none of the debts were secured on or incurred in relation to the assets. The reassessment proceedings disallowed these liabilities based on Section 40(2) of the Finance Act, 1983, which permits deductions only for debts secured on or incurred in relation to taxable assets.The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) [CWT(A)] agreed with the AO on the merits, stating that the assessee was not entitled to deduction of proportionate liabilities. The Tribunal concurred, noting that the car was not acquired through loans or debts secured on it, and thus, the proportionate liability claimed was not permissible.2. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 17:The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act by issuing notices after discovering that the deduction of proportionate liabilities was incorrect. The assessee argued that the reassessment was based merely on a change of opinion, which is invalid under the law. The CWT(A) initially held that the reassessment was invalid due to change of opinion but agreed on the merits that the assessee was not entitled to the deductions.The Tribunal examined the amended Section 17(1) of the Act, which came into force on 1st April 1989. The amendment removed the previous conditions under clauses (a) and (b), leaving only the requirement for the AO to have 'reason to believe' that wealth had escaped assessment. The Tribunal found that the AO had valid reasons to believe that the net wealth chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, thus justifying the reassessment proceedings.3. Validity of Notices Issued under Section 17:The AO issued notices under Section 17 on 9th March 1990, requiring the assessee to file returns by 15th March 1990, thereby curtailing the minimum 30-day period specified in the section. The Tribunal held that this action was illegal, as the AO had no jurisdiction to alter the conditions specified in the Act. The curtailment of the period made the notices invalid and, consequently, the reassessment proceedings based on these notices were also invalid.The Tribunal upheld the CWT(A)'s decision to cancel the reassessment proceedings, albeit for different reasons, citing that the notices were invalid due to the insufficient period provided for compliance.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed both the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee. The reassessment proceedings were invalidated due to the improper issuance of notices, despite the merits of the case being against the assessee regarding the deduction of proportionate liabilities.