ONKARJI KASTURCHAND HUF Vs. WEALTH TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE material facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows : THE petitioner is an HUF and is an assessee under the W.T. Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act. For the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee filed its return of net wealth on 13th March, 1979, but before the filing of that return a reference was made by the WTO on 12th December, 1977, under Section 16A of the Act, regarding the valuation of "Smriti Talkies" owned by the assessee. THE petitioner contends that on the date when the reference was made, the petitioner had not filed its return for the assessment year 1975-76, nor any notice was served on the petitioner to file a return for that year, and as no assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1975-76 was pending when reference to the Valuation Officer was made by the WTO, the reference was premature and the reference as well as the subsequent proceedings before the Valuation Officer deserve to be quashed.

(3.) A bare reading of the aforesaid provision is sufficient to indicate that the jurisdiction to make a reference to a Valuation Officer is conferred on a WTO "for the purpose of making an assessment". The provisions of Clause (b)(ii) of Section 16A(1) of the Act are also governed by the opening words of Section 16A(1) of the Act--"For the purpose of making an assessment". Proceedings for making an assessment under the Act commence when a return is made or a person fails to make a return in response to a notice under Section 14(2) of the Act. When the assessment of the petitioner for the year 1975-76 was admittedly not pending before the WTO, he had no jurisdiction to make a reference to the Valuation Officer, and the reference and the subsequent proceedings before the Valuation Officer must be held to be without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed on this ground. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to consider the further question raised in the petition as to whether the valuation made by the Valuation Officer was or was not in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. "We refrain from expressing any opinion in that behalf. We would also like to make it clear that the WTO shall be at liberty to make a reference to the Valuation Officer afresh, in accordance with law, for the purpose of making an assessment on the petitioner for the assessment year 1975-76.