UDAY KAUSHISH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Sheila Theatre '70'" is a building jointly owned by three brothers, Ajay Kaushish, Sanjay Kaushish and Uday Kaushish, each of whom is entitled to an one -third share in it. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of minor, Uday Kaushish, by his mother, Mrs Sheila Kaushish. There are four prayers in the writ petition : (1) to quash and set aside the order dated April 24, 1974, made by the Commissioner of Wealth -tax (respondent No. 1) dismissing the application of the petitioner under s. 25 of the W.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"); (2) to quash and set aside the reference made by the WTO (respondent No. 3) under s. 16A of the W.T. Act, referring the question of valuation of the Sheila Theatre to the District Valuation Officer (respondent No. 4); (3) to restrain the District Valuation Officer (respondent No. 4) from proceeding with the valuation of the property above mentioned in pursuance of the reference made by the WTO referred to above; and (4) to direct the WTO to allow inspection of the records to the assessed to enable the assessed to satisfy herself regarding the opinion, if any, formed by the WTO under Sec. s. 16A of the W.T. Act, before making a reference under the said Sec. to the Valuation Officer and to direct a copy of the order passed by him under s. 16A to be supplied to the petitioner. The writ petition arises in regard to the valuation of the property above mentioned in connection with the wealth -tax assessments of the petitioner for the assessment years 1971 -72, 1972 -73 and 1973 -74.

(2.) A brief Chronology of the relevant events will bring out the points raised by the petitioner and at issue events will bring out the points raised by the petitioner and at issue in this writ petition. For the assessment years 1971 -72 to 1973 -74, the assessed filed a return of net wealth, including therein an one -third share of the value of the above property belonging to the minor. The value had been shown at Rs. 7,97,800 on the basis on a report given be one R. G. Desai, an "approved valuer" as defined in the Act. For the assessment years 1971 -72 and 1972 -73, the WTO served on July 2, 1973, notice on the petitioner under s, 16(2) of the Act calling upon her to appear before him on July 18, 1973. However, on July 18, 1973 no proceedings took place and the hearing was adjourned. Subsequently, in respect of these two assessment years 1971 -72 and 1972 -73, there was no further issue of any statutory notice to the petitioner under the Act. For the assessment year 1973 -74 no notice under s. 16(2) was at all served.

(3.) On 7th January, 1974 the three co -owners received a letter from the District Valuation Officer, Income Tax Department (Valuation Cell), stating that the valuation of the property known as "Sheila Theatre '70'" situate at Original Road, New Delhi, had been referred to him by the WTO under s. 16A of the W.T. Act for determining the fair market value of the property as on march 31, 1971, March 31, 1972, and March 31, 1973. He declared his intention to inspect the property on January 18, 1974, called upon the assesseds to provide him necessary facilities for the inspection and also called upon them to produce certain documents and accounts for his consideration. The petitioner replied on January 17, 1974, raising various objections to the proposals of the District Valuation Officer. It was pointed out, inter alia, that no copy of the order passed by the WTO under s. 16A or the reference made to the valuation Officer had been communicated to the petitioner and it was urged that, without such an order and communication, the Valuation Officer could not assume any jurisdiction to value the property as desired by him. No reply was received and the petitioner approached the IAC (respondent No. 2) on January 25, 1974, but without success. The IAC informed the petitioner that the opinion of the WTO under s. 16A could not be communicated to the assessed as it was an inter -departmental communication. The assessed attempted on February 12, 1974, to obtain from the WTO an inspection of the relevant files to have a look at the proceedings by which the reference to the Valuation Officer had been made but the WTO declined to grant inspection, thought it appears that in connection with the assessment years 1969 -70 and 1970 -71 such inspection had been granted.