RAJAN LAL Vs. WEALTH TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are filed by Sri Rajan Lal questioning the notices dated November 6, 1987, issued under Section 17(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, proposing to reopen the wealth-tax assessments of the petitioner relating to the assessment years 1979-80 to 1986-87. It would be sufficient if we state the facts of Writ Petition No. 53 of 1988.

(2.) THE petitioner is a wealth-tax assessee. One of the assets held by him is an open plot of land measuring 300 sq. yards situated in Greater Kailash locality of New Delhi. He has been disclosing this asset and its value from the very beginning. Indeed, he has been increasing its value in each consecutive year. It was valued at Rs. 60,000 for the assessment year 1976-77, at Rs. 75,000 for the assessment year 1980-81 and at Rs. 3,00,000 for the assessment year 1986-87. On each occasion, his return was supported by the report of an approved valuer and the valuation placed upon the plot in question was accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer and assessments made. While so, the petitioner entered into an agreement with a third party, agreeing to sell the said plot of land for a consideration of twenty-five lakhs of rupees. THE agreement was entered into in the year 1986. With a view to enable him to execute a sale deed, he applied to the Income-tax Department for an income-tax clearance certificate. From the contents of the application for the clearance certificate, the Wealth-tax Officer came to know that the said plot was being sold for rupees twenty-five lakhs. THEreupon he issued the impugned notices proposing to value the plot in question on the basis of the said consideration amount for all the assessment years 1979-80 to 1986-87.

(3.) THE impugned notice does not, however, specify whether it is issued under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 17(1) as it stood on the date it was issued. It merely recited Section 17. But, from the fact that assessments for eight years are sought to be reopened, it would be evident that the notice is relatable to Clause (a) of Section 17(1). In any event, the reasons recorded in the relevant file put the matter beyond doubt.