1982 (6) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er is a wealth-tax assessee. Among other assets she held agricultural land admeasuring 205 bighas. For the assessment year 1970-71 she had, declared the value of the lands at Rs. 36,000. This value had been returned on the basis of the valuation report of an approved valuer. The WTO accepted this value for the assessment year 1970-71 and 1971-72. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1972-73 (valuation dated March 31, 1972) assessee sold 100 bighas of land for a sum of Rs. 20,000 and for the remaining land the value was shown at Rs. 16,000 in the wealth-tax return. This value was accepted by the WTO. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1973-74 (valuation dated March 31, 1973), the assessee sold 75 bighas o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he agricultural lands and this conferred jurisdiction on the WTO to reopen the assessment. It is alleged that the petitioner sold part of her land in the year 1979 at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per bigha and this clearly showed that the value for agricultural lands in the assessment years in question could not have been less than Rs. 5,000 per bigha. On the basis of this information coming to the knowledge of the WTO the assessments were reopened under s. 17(1)(a) of the W.T. Act. The action taken by the WTO has, therefore, been justified on the ground that the petitioner had failed to furnish proper particulars about her agricultural lands. The order dated September 23, 1980, passed by the WTO may be reproduced: " On December 10, 1979, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... WTO reopened the assessment on receipt of information about higher value of the land. This confusion occurred because the order dated September 23, 1980, referred to receipt of information by the WTO which fact squarely brought the order within the ambit of s. 17(1)(b) of the Act. But action under s. 17(1)(b) of the Act had become time barred and so some gymnastics had been done to bring it within the larger period of limitation prescribed under s. 17(1)(a) of the Act. In the return, therefore, sometimes reference is made to non-disclosure of material facts and sometimes to receipt of information by the WTO about the higher valuation of the lands in question. However, since the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the validit....