TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (8) TMI 77
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the return, the petitioner had disclosed that he had shares worth Rs. 20,500. The name of the company of which shares were held was not disclosed. However, a statement of wealth-tax as on March 31, 1975, was filed. This indicated that the petitioner had 200 equity shares of Rs. 100 each of Continental Construction Pvt. Ltd., valued at Rs. 20,000 and 5 equity shares of Rs. 100 each in Basi Agriculture Farm valued at Rs. 500. During the assessment proceedings, the income and expenditure account as well as the balance-sheet of the petitioner was filed with the Wealth-tax Officer. A certificate on behalf of Continental Construction Pvt. Ltd., dated December 6, 1978, was also produced which certified that the petitioner was holding 200 equity sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts, then a notice purporting to reopen an assessment cannot be issued (see Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC)). According to section 17(1)(a) as it stood at the relevant time, a notice seeking to reopen the assessment could be issued, inter alia, on the ground that the assessee had not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of his net wealth. Shri Rajendra contends that the use of the word "necessary" in the said section indicates that the petitioner should have disclosed to the Wealth-tax Officer, the break-up value calculated in accordance with the provisions of rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules. In our opinion, what the assessee has to do is to disclose all primary and materia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such a value unless asked to do so by the Assessing Officer. Merely because the value returned by him may not have been the correct market value calculated in accordance with rule 1D, it is no ground for our holding that the petitioner had not disclosed all the material and relevant facts. In this connection, reference may usefully be made to two decisions, one is Smt. Rajeshwari Birla v. WTO [1979] 119 ITR 629 (Cal). That was also a case where the question arose with regard to the valuation of unquoted shares. The assessee had filed a wealth-tax return valuing the unquoted shares and assessment had been made. Thereafter, a circular was issued whereby the mode of valuation was sought to be changed. Notices were then issued under section 17 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the Bombay High Court. What, in effect, learned counsel for the respondents seeks to agitate is that the petitioner has justified his valuing the shares at Rs. 100 each at the time when the original assessment was made. That, in our opinion, was not a duty which was cast by law on the petitioner. The petitioner was undoubtedly required to disclose fully and truly the extent of his shareholding in the company which, in this case, was a private limited company and the fact that the shares were unquoted and lastly the value which the petitioner placed on those shares. It is alleged that the shares were undervalued by the petitioner. Even if this be so, this is only an allegation by the Department based on the break-up value ascertained ....