1984 (1) TMI 118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oes not call for reference, we are unable to accept the request of the concerned Commissioner for the following reasons. 2. The assessment year involved is 1972-73. Originally wealth-tax assessment was framed on 30th April, 1973 at a total wealth of Rs. 2,44,270 under s. 16(3). After the said assessment was framed the WTO on the basis of a complaint referred the matter to the official cell of valuation and got the same valued as on valuation date 31st March, 1974 and by theory of deduction came to the conclusion that valuation by him in original assessment was higher and be resorted of the said property which was accepted to proceedings under 17. When the issue travelled before the AAC, he accepted the contention of the assessee that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... back to the date of valuation relevant for the year under consideration and initiated proceedings under s. 17 which are apparently under s. 17(1)(b), as observed by the AAC, as the appellant had disclosed all the particulars of his assets, it could not be under s. 17(1)(b) according to him. On this issue, the consistent view of this Bench has been that on the basis of subsequent valuation report assessment proceedings cannot be initiated". 5. Though the Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee on the basis of uncontroverted facts which finds place in para 4, yet the ld. departmental representative at the time of hearing of this R.A. pressed hard for grant of reference and relied on the cases of CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd (1971) 7....