VIJAYA RAJA KUM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of the connected writ petitions particularised as -

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case in each of these petitions are that Thakurani Ukta Kumari Devi w/o Thakur Vijay Bahadur Singh was the assessee to wealth-tax under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short the "Act"). This assessee expired on February 27, 1991. She has executed a will making the petitioner, her daughter, the executor of that will. Respondent No. 2 (Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax), Investigating Circle, issued notice to the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid assessee, as inheritor of the property under Section 17 of the Act (annexure "D") proposing to reassess on the linchpin that net wealth has escaped assessment for the assessment year 1981-82 in the aforesaid petition and for subsequent years till 1990-91 in the other connected petitions. The assessment year in each case is from April 1st to March 31st. After issuance of the notice, respondent No. 2 referred the matter to respondent No. 3 (The Valuation Officer, Income-tax Department) for report and respondent No. 3, in turn, issued notice to the petitioner for the purposes of valuation of the property in question under Section 16A of the Act for the purpose of completion of proceedings as initiated with the aforesaid notice under Section 17 of the Act. Aggrieved by the notice and the order of reference as noted above in each of these petitions, the petitioner has filed these petitions seeking quashment of the same.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the notice issued by respondent No. 2 as well as the reference made to respondent No. 3. He submitted that once the condition precedent for initiating the action in terms of Section 17 of the Act had existed, respondent No. 2 is competent in law to make a reference to respondent No. 3. COUNSEL has placed reliance on Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. /TO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC) and ITO v. Biju Patnaik [1991] 188 ITR 247 (SC). According to him, Section 2(cb) of the Act clarifies that "assessment" includes reassessment. He further submits that the scheme for assessment under Section 17 of the Act is the same as the one for initial assessment. He, therefore, argued that if reference is permissible for initial assessment, there is no reason as to why the same should not be available for reassessment in terms of Section 17 of the Act. He, therefore, justifies the notice as well as the reference.