COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. NALINI PARTHASARATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of law referred to us for our decision at the instance of the Revenue is as follows :

(2.) THE assessee is an individual. THE assessment year with which we are concerned is the year 1976-77. She had filed the return of wealth for the said assessment year showing the value of the property called K. Ramya, situate at No. 9-C Kasturi Ranga Iyengar Road, Madras, at RS. 2,70,000 supported by an approved valuer's report. It is seen from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that on the basis of an audit objection, it was found that the value of the building at No. 9-C, Kasturi Ranga lyen gar Road, Madras-18, was underassessed and the Wealth-tax Officer took the audit objection as information envisaged by Section 17(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, and reopened the assessments for the years 1974-75 and 19?6-77 and completed the assessment adopting the value of the building for the assessment year 1976-77 at Rs. 3,45,610 as against the admitted value of Rs. 2,70,000.