COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. T RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent is an assessee under the WT Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short). For the asst. yr. 1971-72, the assessee had failed to file a return in response to the notice under S. 14(2) of the Act, whereupon the WTO completed the assessment ex parte under S. 16(5) of the Act. On the best judgment assessment, he estimated the net wealth of the assessee at Rs. 3,00,000. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under S. 17(1)(a) of the Act since, according to the assessing authority, the wealth chargeable to tax had escaped assessment by failure on the part of the assessee to file the return. THE reassessment completed by the assessing authority was unsuccessfully challenged by the assessee in appeal before the first appellate authority, viz., CWT (A). On further appeal, the Tribunal held the reopening of the assessment to be bad in law and cancelled the reassessment. THE Tribunal has, inter alia, found that, while completing the original assessment ex parte under S. 16(5) of the Act, the WTO had been guided by the details of the properties furnished by the assessee in respect of the assessment for the earlier asst. yr. 1969-70. THE Tribunal further noted that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any of his properties in respect of the asst. yr. 1969-70. THE Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that the reopening of the assessment for the relevant assessment year would not be justified merely on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish his return of wealth for that year.

(2.) ON the above facts, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court :

(3.) THE Tribunal has found that there was an assessment for the year 1969-70 from which it is clear that the assessee had given complete details of the property held by him, including self-occupied property. Mention had also been made of the open land from which ground rent had been received. None of the properties had been omitted by the assessee in the return filed for the asst. yrs. 1969- 70 and 1970-71. Both the assessments are based on the details furnished for the year 1969-70. Hence, it cannot be said that the assessee had omitted to mention any particular property in the return for the year 1970-71. Hence, it cannot be said that there was failure on the part of the assessee to furnish particulars necessary for the assessment. This finding of fact is not under challenge in this reference. Even otherwise, the office note at the foot of the reassessment order dt. 22nd Feb., 1983 discloses that the WTO had admittedly adopted the values taken in respect of the properties in question as per orders for the asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70, which had been annulled on the ground of limitation. THE assessment was reopened under S. 17(1)(a) of the Act on the basis of two letters from another ITO which are incorporated in the Tribunal's order. THEre is no dispute that there was no concealment of the property itself. But the Assessing Officer only disputed the net value of the said properties on the basis of the said report of the ITO. In Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC), dealing with the corresponding provision under the IT Act, the Supreme Court has held that the expression "material facts"used in cl. (a) of the said provision, refers only to primary facts : the duty of the assessee is only to disclose primary facts and he has not also to indicate what factual or legal inferences should properly be drawn from the primary facts.