WEA TO FIFTH Vs. ABDUL QADAR ADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ appeals are presented by the Wealth -tax Officer aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge (see [1987] 168 ITR 420) allowing the writ petitions presented by the respondents and quashing notices issued under section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth -tax Act, 1957.

(2.) THE brief and undisputed facts of the case are these : For the assessment year 1972 -73, respondents who are co -owners having half share in the house property bearing premises No. 12, Millers Road, Bangalore, declared the total value of the building at Rs. 1,80,000 and the half share of each of them at Rs. 90,000. THE whole of the area including the building was 5,775 sq. yards. THE assessing authority did not accept the valuation furnished by the respondents. He fixed the value of the house property as on March 31, 1971, the date of valuation as follows :

(3.) THERE can be no doubt that, when notices under section 17(1)(a) or 17(1)(b) of the Act are issued by the Wealth -tax Officer and for doing so, the basis prescribed under clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be, exists, this court should decline to interfere in a petition under article 226 of the Constitution and the defence, if any, of the concerned assessee should be allowed to be taken before the Wealth -tax Officer in reply to the showcause notice. It is only in cases where the condition precedent prescribed in clause (a) or clause (b) does not exist and still a notice has been issued by the Wealth -tax Officer, the party is entitled to seek relief at the hands of this court under article 226 of the Constitution, so that he may not be subjected to unnecessary proceedings before the authorities. In other words, the relief which may be sought for in a petition under article 226 of the Constitution should be in the nature of a writ of prohibition which will be issued only if there is total lack of jurisdiction and not otherwise. THEREfore the question for consideration in this case is, whether the basic condition for the exercise of jurisdiction under section 17(1)(a) of the Act exists or not. As can be seen from the assessment order and the facts stated earlier, the respondents had disclosed that they were the owners of property bearing premises No. 12, Millers Road, Bangalore. It is true they had given the valuation of the siad property as Rs. 1,80,000. But this valuation was to accepted by the Wealth -tax Officer. He made his own computation and fixed the value of the property at the rate of Rs. 55 sq. yard and after giving deduction to the extent of 25 per cent. to the area and the cost of material at Rs. 10,000, computed the value of the property at Rs. 4,27,625 and half share of it was assessed at the hands of each of the assessees. Section 17 of the Wealth -tax Act, 1957, which confers jurisdiction on the Wealth -tax Officer to assess or reassess the escaped turnover, reads :