TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (12) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers. The petitioners are related as brothers and sisters belonging to the same family. The petitioners are Parsi by caste. Respondent No. 1 is the Wealth-tax Officer, A-Ward, Indore, and has jurisdiction to assess the petitioners under the Wealth-tax Act. The assessment years involved in the present petition are 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. The petitioners jointly own five properties---(1) Godrej Mansion, 110, Ushaganj, Indore, (2) Gul Mansion, 9, Maharani Road, Indore, (3) Flat No. 8, Mistry Court, Bombay, (4) Show Room at Imami Gate, Bhopal, and (5) a building situated on Bombay---Agra Road, Indore. All the aforesaid properties are being jointly owned by petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 along with their brother, Shri Bomy Godrej, as co-owners, so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal disagreed with the valuation made by respondent No. 1 and allowing the appeals remanded the case to respondent No. 1 to determine the valuation of the joint properties in accordance with the directions given by the Tribunal. Respondent No. 1 thereupon passed fresh orders of assessment in respect of all the petitioners for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 on April 28, 1981. In the meantime, petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 had also filed their wealth-tax returns for the assessment year 1975-76. Respondent No. 1 passed separate orders of assessment in respect of each of the petitioners increasing the valuation of the joint properties on the basis of the valuer's report. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 thereupon filed separate appeals before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice under section 17(1)(b) is four years. A reply has been filed by the respondent and it has been pointed out that on July 24, 1980, a report of the valuation of the property was received and in that it was found that the assessee has undervalued his property. Therefore, all these four notices were issued for reopening of the assessment. The notices have been issued because according to the assessing authority he has reason to believe that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the value of these properties for years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. It is also pointed out in the return filed by the respondent that this valuation report was not available with the assessing authority when the assessment wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r section 226 of the Constitution of India for entertaining this petition or not. A similar question came up before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Lalji Haridas v. R. H. Bhatt [1965] 55 ITR 415, wherein the provisions of the Saurashtra Income-tax Ordinance, 1949, was under consideration. There it was held that in the writ jurisdiction under article 226 such questions should not be permitted to be raised. It has observed : " Mr. Pathak for the appellant attempted to argue that the notice issued against the appellant is, on the face of it, invalid, because it is barred by time. We did not allow Mr. Pathak to develop this point, because we took the view that a plea of this kind must ordinarily be taken before respondent No. 1 himse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. Ltd v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC). There, their Lordships did not have occasion to deal with the entertainment of the petition directly before the High Court. However, their Lordships had taken a view that if the court finds that the action of the authority is without jurisdiction, then a quick relief by writ can be given prohibiting the authority to proceed without jurisdiction. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to a recent decision of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO [1993]203 ITR 456 (SC). In this case, the Allahabad High Court directly entertained a petition against a notice for reassessment under section 147 read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act. In this case, the question was not whether the writ jurisdiction should....