VIJAYPAT KAILASHPAT SINGHANIA Vs. SHARMA S B WTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an HUF known as 'Vijaypat Singhania' of which the petitioner is Karta and is assessed to wealth tax in the status of HUF for over several years. For the asst. yrs. 1967 68 to 1972 73, the petitioner filed returns before the WTO on diverse dates declaring net wealth. In pursuance of order dt. 11th Feb., 1980, passed by CBDT, the records relating to the petitioner's assessment were transferred to the ITO, Central Circle, Bombay. The assets of HUF comprised, inter alia, of interest in the partnership firm of M/s Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers, Kanpur. The petitioner complains that the WTO did not complete the assessment as required under the provisions of law. On 12th April, 1984, six notices were served upon the petitioner by WTO calling upon to attend the office in connection with certain points with the returns submitted for asst. yrs. 1967 68 to 1972 73. The petitioner filed the present petition under Art. 226 of the constitution of India to challenge legality of these notices.

(2.) THE gravamen of the complaint of the petitioner is that it was incumbent upon WTO to pass order of assessment under S. 16 of the WT Act in accordance with the provisions of S. 17A of the Act. The petitioner claims that after expiry of the period specified in S. 17A of the Act, the WTO has no jurisdiction and authority to proceed with any assessment proceedings or to pass order of assessment. The petitioner claims that period of limitation set out under S. 17A of the Act is a fetter on the power of WTO to proceed with the assessment and consequently, the service of notice calling upon the petitioner to explain certain points was without jurisdiction. In answer to the petition, S.B. Sharma, WTO, has filed return sworn on 16th June, 1984. The return claims that the petitioner is one of the partners in the firm of M/s Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers, carrying on business at Kanpur. Padampat Singhania was one of the partners in the said firm and in the assessment proceedings of Padampat Singhania, the WTO, Kanpur, made a reference to the Valuation Officer under S. 16A of the Act with a view to ascertain the value of the assets of the partners in the partnership firm. Padampat singhania, on his own behalf and on behalf of the partnership firm, filed writ petition in Allahabad High Court to challenge the reference made under S. 16A of the Act. Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition and thereupon the firm and Padampat Singhania preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court of India to challenge legality of order dt. 4th Oct., 1977, passed by Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court entertained the appeal and on 21st Aug., 1978, passed following order restraining the WTO from proceeding with the assessment :

(3.) REFERENCE to decision of Single Judge of Calcutta High Court delivered on 13th Nov., 1991, was made to urge that in respect of writ petition filed by another partner before Calcutta High Court, the contention that assessment proceedings were barred by limitation prescribed under S. 17A was upheld. The perusal of the judgment of the learned Judge established that the order of the Supreme Court was not brought to the attention of the Calcutta High Court, nor the Department claimed advantage of Expln. I to S. 17A of the Act. It is, therefore, obvious that the decision of the Calcutta High Court can have no application to the facts of the present case.