2017 (8) TMI 1234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....WTA No. 12/PN/2007) came to be disposed of by the Tribunal by this common order. 3. One of the Appeals was by the respondent assessee. The second one was by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.   4. On 3rd June, 2007, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune, dealt with an appeal against the assessment order dated 31st March, 2006 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 17 read with Section 16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'WT Act'). 5. The grounds proposed by the assessee relate to the understanding of the Assessing Officer, based on which he brought certain transaction within the purview of the WT Act. 6. An immovable property was belonging to the assessee (HUF) as a coowner. A notice under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l alongwith a cross appeal of the Revenue, whereunder, the ground raised was deletion of a protective addition made by the Assessing Officer. 10. It is common ground that the Tribunal dealt with the core issue relating to the properties/assets chargeable to tax as claimed under the WT Act and otherwise by the assessee. 11. The Tribunal noted these contentions. It perused the contents of the notice which read as under : "In this case, a notice u/s 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2005 duly served on the assessee, reopening the wealth tax assessment for the A. Y. 1998-99 for the following reasons:   "The assessee is a coowner of property situated at Vadgaon Sheri, S. No. 15 admeasuring 45 acr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. It says, without prejudice to that assessment, the wealth tax authorities propose to reopen the assessment and for computation of chargeability of wealth tax. Such a notice was rightly termed as vitiated and the reopening was held to be impermissible in law. In paragraph 17 of the order under challenge, the Tribunal may have referred to a judgment of this Court in the case of DHFL Venture Capital Fund vs ITO in Writ Petition (L) No. 2996 of 2012 dated 14th June, 2013, but what we find is the recourse to Section 17 of the WT Act was not justified in this situation. The Tribunal felt that it could be justified in a situation where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the asset ought to be brought to wealth tax and should be cha....