RADHA GAJAPATHI RAJU Vs. DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE in both these cases, the subject-matter involved and the respondents are common, both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the concerned parties.

(2.) THESE writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners herein by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of certiorari call for the records of the first respondent in proceedings No. DVO/MDS/ WT/23 of 1989-90 and DVO/MDS/WT(22) of 1989-90, dated January'20, 1990, and to quash the same.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case of the petitioners herein are as follows: Both the petitioners herein are assessees on the file of the second respondent and have been regularly assessed to income-tax and wealth-tax. THEy were partners in a firm known as "Admiralty Hotel" which owned certain lands and buildings. THE property was utilised for being let out as a residential apartment as part of the business activity of the firm. Subsequently, the firm was dissolved and under an arrangement between the partners there was further distribution of the property between the erstwhile partners. THEse transactions took place in 1984 and subsequently, prior to the said date, the petitioners herein were co-owners of the said property. THE property consisted of vacant land and superstructures thereon constructed in or around 1968. THE petitioners have been regularly assessed to wealth-tax. For the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84, their assessments were completed by orders dated March 13, 1985, and March 20, 1985, respectively. However, subsequently, certain additions were made to the wealth returned by the petitioners for the said assessment years and the net wealth was determined by the Wealth-tax Officer. Thus those assessments have become final. THEir assessments for the subsequent years have also been completed by the Wealth-tax Officer. However, their assessments for the years 1981-82 to 1983-84 were set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax, in exercise of his powers under Section 25 of the Wealth-tax Act. THEy were set aside on the ground that one of the daughters of the petitioners who was one of the partners in the firm of Admiralty Hotel, had retired in November 1984, releasing and relinquishing her interest in the firm and on the basis of the consideration provided to them, for such retirement, release and relinquishment, the value of their interest adopted for the purpose of assessment in the earlier assessments for the aforesaid years, appeared to be low. On this basis, the Commissioner of Income-tax set aside the assessments, and directed the Wealth-tax Officer, to redo the assessments, after fixing the market value of the petitioners' interest in the said firm. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Wealth-tax Officer who has assumed jurisdiction of their assessments, issued notices for making fresh assessments in respect of the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. Under the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the assessing authority was required to value the petitioners' interest in the firm, Admiralty Hotel, and redeter-mine their net wealth for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84. THEreafter, the District Valuation Officer, called upon the petitioners to show cause why the property should not be valued as follows, in respect of the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_704_ITR239_1999Html1.htm</FRM>