TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... valuation officer's report would constitute an information for validly reopening the assessment? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in not considering the judgments of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of CWT Vs. V.Cleetus, 213 ITR 14?" 2. The assessment year in question is 1985-1986. In respect of the said assessment year, the assessment was originally completed under Section 16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act on 13.3.1990. It is an admitted fact that even before the completion of the assessment, the Wealth Tax Officer made a reference to the Valuation Officer under Section 16A of the Wealth Tax Act. However, in view of the limitation on the assessment, the same was completed as early as on 13.3.1990. However, on the basis of the Valuation Officer's report, received subsequent to the assessment, the assessment was reopened under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act and a notice was issued on 16.3.1993. In response to the same, the assessee filed his return, admitting the value of net wealth at Rs.26,49,900/-. Rejecting the claim of the assessee, the assessment in respect of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to be completed within the period of limitation, on receipt of the valuation report, rightly the assessment was reopened. Going by Section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, as it then stood, reopening was based on materials. Thus even though there was no omission or failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing the details of net value, taking the valuation report as a good information in possession of the Wealth Tax Officer, the reassessment done, was in order. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee pointed out that admittedly, in this case, notice was issued only on 16.3.1993, which means, as per Section 17(1)(b) as it then stood, in the event of the absence of any failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, the reopening ought to have been done within a period of four years of the end of that assessment year to which the tax relates to. It is an admitted fact herein that the assessment year related to 1985-1986 and the reopening was done long after four years. Thus the assessee's case could not be fitted in to fall under Section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act. Hence, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 14 of his net wealth or the net wealth of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act for any assessment year or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of his net wealth or the net wealth of such other person for that year, the net wealth chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year, whether by reason of under-assessment or assessment at too low a rate or otherwise; or (b) has, in consequence of any information in his possession, reason to believe, notwithstanding that there has been no such omission or failure as is referred to in clause (a), that the net wealth chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any year, whether by reason of under-assessment or assessment at too low a rate or otherwise; he may, in cases falling under clause (a) at any time within eight years and in cases falling under clause (b) at any time within four years of the end of that assessment year, serve on such person a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-section (2) of section 14, and may proceed to assess or reassess such net wealth, and the provisions of this Act sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ginal assessment; thereby there is nothing to suggest that the assessee had withheld the material facts or that the facts placed before the Officer are not truly and fully disclosed, necessary for assessment. Hence, we do not find any ground for this Court to accept the case of the Revenue that the Officer had exercised his jurisdiction under Section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act to reopen the assessment. The second proviso to Section 17(1), which was introduced with effect from 1.4.1989, is not available during the relevant assessment year. 13. In the decision reported in 264 ITR 566 (Commissioner of Income-Tax and another V. Foramer France), arising under Income Tax Act relating to Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, the Supreme Court pointed out that when there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for assessment, the assessment could not be reopened on the basis of change of opinion. 14. In the decision reported in 237 ITR 505 (Karni Singh Ji of Bikaner (Dr.) v. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr.), referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, the Delhi High Court held that t....