AVTAR SINGH SANDHU Vs. WEALTH TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging by way of petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the legality and validity of notices issued by the WTO, respondent No. 1, under S. 17 of the WT Act, 1957 (to be referred to in brief as "the Act"). These seven notices pertaining to asst. yrs. 1968 -69 to 1974 -75 were all issued on 25th Aug., 1975, and served on the petitioner on 2nd Sept., 1975. Since the point involved is the same, we propose to deal with all the seven writ petitions by a common judgment and order. The facts of Civil Writ Petition No. 1264 of 1975 are being set out.

(2.) THE petitioner, an individual, is being assessed to wealth -tax since the asst. year 1957 -58. He filed his return for the asst. year 1968 -69 and indicated his net wealth at Rs. 5,77,408. This figure included the value of two immovable properties, one situated at 18, Tilak Marg (earlier known as 18, Harding Avenue). New Delhi, and the other at C -Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The value of these properties was shown as Rs. 4,56,906. In these writ petitions, we are concerned only with the property situated at 18, Tilak Marg, New Delhi, the value of which was indicated at Rs. 1,19,406 in the return. This value was duly supported by the report of an approved valuer dt. 25th Feb., 1969. The WTO completed the assessment for 1968 -69 on 20th Nov., 1969, and accepted the value of the said property, as above indicated.

(3.) BEFORE the sale could be effected, the WTO respondent No. 1, sent a letter dt. 2nd Sept., 1975, to the Registrar requiring him not to act on the tax clearance certificate. The petitioner thereafter contacted respondent No. 1 and the IAC of wealth -tax with regard to this unusual action. He was then informed that there was a proposal to revise the value of the properties owned by him. The notices, as above -mentioned, under S. 17 of the Act had already been served for the relevant asst. yrs. 1968 -69 to 1974 -75. In consequence of this, certain additional wealth -tax demands and penalties were likely to arise and the petitioner would be required to arrange for further security. The petitioner, then, met the CIT who required him to furnish security to the extent of Rs.4,40,000 over and above the security of Rs. 1,50,000 already furnished. This information was conveyed to the petitioner through a letter dt. 23rd Sept., 1975, by respondent No. 1. This letter also indicated that supplementary assessment of wealth -tax were to be framed in terms of notices under S. 17(1) (a) of the Act for the years 1968 -69 to 1974 -75.