https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38847 The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in concluding that the proceedings under section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act were invalid. It was determined that the successor Wealth-tax Officer was justified in reopening the assessment due to an error apparent in the original assessment. The court clarified that "information" under section 17(1)(b) can include knowledge from materials already on record and does not solely require an external source. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the department, upholding the validity of the proceedings under section 17(1)(b) and awarded costs accordingly. en-us Wed, 06 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:36:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38847 The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in concluding that the proceedings under section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act were invalid. It was determined that the successor Wealth-tax Officer was justified in reopening the assessment due to an error apparent in the original assessment. The court clarified that "information" under section 17(1)(b) can include knowledge from materials already on record and does not solely require an external source. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the department, upholding the validity of the proceedings under section 17(1)(b) and awarded costs accordingly. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Wed, 06 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38847