TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (5) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts and in holding that proceedings taken under section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act were not valid?" The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee/opposite party (hereinafter to as "the assessee") is a trust and was created by the late Shree Chintamani Ghosh under a registered deed dated July 24, 1924. In the said deed the provision for descendants and other relatives of the settlor, for charity and for due performance of the worship of the family deity was made. The deed of trust sets out the names of different beneficiaries and the extent of the benefits conferred on them. Briefly stated the allocation of the income was made as under: ---------------....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceeding under section 17(1)(a) of the Act on the ground that the aforesaid items have not been disclosed by the assessee in the original return as wealth inasmuch as at the time of original assessment, the assessee did not bring the decision of this court to the notice of the Assessing Officer. The assessing authority was of the view that the wealth liable to tax had escaped assessment due to failure and omission on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly its wealth. Against the assessment orders, the assessee filed appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was contended before him that the trust deed was on record and the returns were filed on that basis, that the allowances "A" and "B" which the Wealth-tax Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondent-assessee. The short question involved in the present case whether, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment within the meaning of section 17(1)(a) of the Act. Section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act reads as follows: "17.(1) If the Wealth-tax Officer,- (a) has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of any person to make a return under section 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 n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing authority are erroneous, the assessing authority cannot reopen the assessment merely on the basis of a change of opinion. This principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC); ITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC); Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT v. Burlop Dealers Ltd. [1971] 79 ITR 609 (SC). In Foramer v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 436 (All), it was held that where there was no failure on the part of the assessee to make a return disclosing full and material particulars for assessment, notice cannot be issued under section 148 on mere change of opinion. Against that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....neering and manufacturing company, stopped its business of spinning and the only activity which it had been carrying on was to let some portions of its property, but some godowns were in the occupation of the assessee. While submitting its return of income, the assessee did not include the annual letting value of these godowns but claimed deduction of municipal taxes in respect of them. The Income-tax Officer accepted the computation made by the assessee and completed the assessments. Subsequently, in view of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Liquidator, Mahmudabad Properties Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 470, the Income-tax Officer issued notice under section 148 read with section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and included the a....