2005 (1) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the assessee's case as initiation of proceedings was held to be 'incidental only' and not in consequence of a finding or direction as required under sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957?  2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of section 17(2) of the Wealth-tax Act do not cover a determination of wealth in respect of any year other than the assessment year under enquiry or the liability of a person who was not a party to reassessment proceedings because action under section 17(2) initiated in the case of the assessee was in consequence of a finding 'given in the case of her husband Raja Y. D. Dubey'?" The reference relat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cision after making proper enquiry, vide order dated March 29, 1984. The Wealth-tax Officer while framing the assessment, had held that the five houses at Hussainabad exclusively belonged to Rani Dayawati Devi as per the assessment order dated January 23, 1986, and, therefore, the value of these houses were excluded from the total wealth of the Hindu undivided family. On the same date, i.e., January 23, 1986, the Wealth-tax Officer initiated action under section 17 of the Act against Rani Dayawati Devi, that the wealth has escaped assessment because no assessment had been made for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1976-77 in respect of the value of Hussainabad properties. He after giving an opportunity of hearing to the late Rani Dayawati Dev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessment or reassessment may be commenced, shall apply to an assessment or reassessment to be made on such person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 23, 24, 25, 27 or 29 or by a court in any proceedings under any other law." From a reading of the aforesaid provision, it is absolutely clear that the period of limitation has been lifted only in cases where reassessment is being made in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 23, 24, 25, 27 or 29 or by a court in any proceeding under any other law. As already mentioned before, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner while passing the order on March 29, 1984, in the case of....