TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... WT Act", challenging orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Camp at Delhi, in W. T. A. Nos. 434 to 430/Delhi of 1994 by order dated November 30, 1998. 2. All these miscellaneous appeals were admitted by this court on October 18, 2000, on the following three substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether the impugned order stands vitiated in law on account of it being based on the decision in the case of Smt. Asha Digvijay Singh in W. T. A. Nos. 1253 to 1259/Delhi of 1988 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "A", stood set aside vide the decision in the case. MCC No. 73 of 191, (CWT v. Smt. Asha Digvijaya Singh [1998] 234 ITR 77 (MP)) decided on August 6, 1996, by this court? (b) Whether the Income-tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been filed. 5. Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeals. According to him the total tax effect in every appeal is around Rs. 2,000. He invited the attention of this court to notification issued under section 10 of the Wealth-tax Act, which provides that appeal could be preferred to the High Court in cases where a debt of wealth-tax does not exceed Rs. 25,000. He invited the attention of this court to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Zoeb Y. Topiwala [2006] 284 ITR 379; [2005] 199 CTR 656 wherein the Bombay High Court has held that the directions issued by the Board dated March 27, 2000, directing the Department not to raise questions of law where the tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we proceed to decide other grounds. 7. Counsel for the respondent has also urged that the Department has not preferred appeal against an order passed for the assessment year 1986-87 and orders passed in the cases of two other assessees, i.e., Asha Devi and Laxmansingh, are also not challenged. Hence, this appeal be dismissed. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that these points were not raised by the appellant before the Tribunal and they cannot be decided in these appeals. We find force in the arguments of counsel for the appellant. The order for the year 1986-87 is not on record. Hence appeals cannot be dismissed on that account. 8. After perusing the questions framed by this court in these appeals we find that quest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sclose 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 underassessment 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 underassessment or assessment at too Iowa rate or otherwise;" 10. Section 17 is divided in two parts, i.e., 17(1)(a) and 17(1)(b). In the present case notice does not mention th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent is too low and therefore the assessment should be reopened. It is also alleged that the assessee has l/7th share in the Fort and the assessee has not properly valued his share in the Fort. But, this point was decided by the Wealth-tax Officer in favour of the assessee. 12. Now, the question is whether the assessee has not truly or correctly disclosed the material facts to exercise the powers under section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act that the Wealth-tax Officer has any information in his possession to show that the property was valued too low to escape the assessment to exercise powers under section 17(1)(b). 13. Shri R. D. Jain, learned senior advocate, appearing for the appellant relied upon a judgment of the apex court in the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pect and held that the opinion of an audit party of the Income-tax Department cannot be regarded as "information" within the meaning of section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act for the purpose of reopening of an assessment. Similar view is taken by this court in the case of Lokendra Singh Rathore v. WTO [1985] 153 ITR 466, and held that section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act does not empower the Revenue to reopen a final assessment whereby oversight, carelessness or inefficiency on the part of the Wealth-tax Officer proper investigation was not carried out though all the primary facts which the assessee was required to place were before him. 15. In the present case the assessee has disclosed gold ornaments and silver utensils. The only ground ....