UNION OF INDIA Vs. VIJAYA RAJE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE million dollar question that arises in appeals directed against a common judgment passed in a bunch of petitions is : whether the Assessing Officer was competent to make a reference to the Valuation Officer for determining the value of the Asset/s under section 16-A (i), in reassessment proceedings under section 17 of wealth Tax Act, 1957?

(2.) THE facts leading to the controversy lie in a narrow compass. Appellant No. 2 initiated reassessment proceedings against respondent and put her on notice for A. Y. 1981-91 in exercise of power under section 17. He thereafter referred the matter to appellant No. 3 for valuation of the property in question. Pursuant thereto this appellant issued notice to respondent under section 16-A (i ).

(3.) RESPONDENT felt aggrieved of the two notices and filed writ petitions assessment yearwise calling in question these notices but limiting attack only to the notice issued by the valuation officer (appellant No, 3 ). Her case was that both the references and consequential notices were illegal and incompetent because such a reference could only be made in original assessment and not in reassessment proceedings. Reliance in support was placed on 1987 Vol. 166 ITR 706, K. M. Ramdas Prabhu and others vs. 1st wealth Tax Officer, 1982 Vol. 135 ITR 188, Onkarji Kasturchand vs. W. T. O. and 1988 Vol 169 ITR 496, Sharmishthadevi Holkar vs. W. T. O.