TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (3) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt under s. 16(3) of the Act completed on ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985-86 2nd Aug., 1985 26th March, 1990 1986-87 12th Aug., 1986 12th Aug., 1990 1987-88 17th Aug., 1987 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....------------------------------ 1985-86 9.50 45.27 1986-87 10.45 51.50 1987-88 10.45 55.75 1988-89 10.45 &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; 137.41 1986-87 11.36 159.02 1987-88 11.36 174.65 1988-89 11.36 194.26 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the above table it is clear that there is a substantial difference between the two valuations. The main question for consideration in these ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment under sub-section (3) of section 16 or sub-section (1) of this section has been made for such assessment year, (i) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) ; (ii) if four years, but not more than seven years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the net wealth chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to rupees five lakhs or more for that year ; (iii) if seven years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the net wealth chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to rupees ten lakhs or more for that year . " According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had made true and full disclosure of all material facts for purposes of the wealth-tax assessment for the relevant year. It is further pointed out that as a matter of fact the Department did not accept the valuation of the properties as declared by the assessee in the return. The value was taken as per the Settlement Commission order. The assessments....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay start reassessment proceedings, either because some fresh facts had come to light which were not previously disclosed or some information with regard to the facts previously disclosed comes into his possession which tends to expose the untruthfulness of those facts. In such situations, it is not a case of mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference from the same facts as were earlier available but acting on fresh information. Since the belief is that of the Income-tax Officer, the sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief is not for the court to judge but it is open to an assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief or that the belief was not at all a bona fide one or was based on vague, irrelevant and non-specific information. To that limited extent, the court may look into the conclusion arrived at by the Income-tax Officer and examine whether there was any material available on the record from which the requisite belief could be formed by the Income-tax Officer and further whether that material had any rational connection or a live link for the formation of the requisite belief." The above observations of the Supreme Court are equally att....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 2 which defines "valuation date"--- " 'valuation date', in relation to any year for which an assessment is to be made under this Act, means the last day of the previous year as defined in section 3 of the Income-tax Act, if an assessment were to be made under that Act for that year:" Thus, according to learned counsel, it is the obligation of the assessee to disclose his net wealth as on the valuation date, In the present case apparently the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the valuation of the properties in question disclosed by the assessee and that is why he sought for the report of the Valuation Officer. The report of the Valuation Officer was sought during the pendency of the assessment proceedings and not after the completion of the assessment under section 16(3) of the Act. However, before the report of the Valuation Officer was received, the valuation was completed under section 16(3) of the Act. This was also done not as per the valuation of the properties disclosed by the assessee but as per the order of the Settlement Commission dated March 14, 1990. This, according to learned counsel for the Revenue, shows that in the first instance itself, the Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... believe, the statement would be totally hollow and such a notice of assessment will have to be held to be bad. But if there are reasons to reopen an assessment, like fresh facts coming to light or some information becoming available to the Assessing Officer showing that the facts disclosed by the assessee and accepted by the officer earlier, were not true, the notice of reassessment will be fully justified. The rule of prudence and requirement of finality to be attached to assessment orders, so far as the officer passing the same is concerned, enjoin that Assessing Officers should not be allowed to lightly reopen the assessments already completed by them or their predecessors. The requirement that the officer should have "reason to believe", contains the safeguards in this behalf. No elaborate reasons are required to be recorded nor will the court go into sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief by the officer. The assessee has a limited right to challenge the notice of assessment by saying that either there was no reason for the belief or the reasons were based on irrelevant or extraneous material or fact, etc. As per facts already noted, the Assessing Officer had sought fo....