UNION OF INDIA Vs. KU VIJAYA RAJE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE million dollar question that arises in these appeals directed against a common judgment passed in a bunch of writ 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 16A(1), in reassessment proceedings under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?"

(2.) THE facts leading to the controversy lie in a narrow compass. Appellant No. 2 initiated reassessment proceedings against the respondent and put her on notice for the assessment year 1981-91 (sic) 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 the respondent under Section 16A(1).

(3.) THE writ court dwelling on the scheme of the Act and on interpreting the provisions of Sections 16A and 17 took the view that such a reference could be made to the Valuation Officer only in the original assessment and not in reassessment proceedings under Section 17 and the scheme of the Act. While doing so it placed whole hog reliance on the judgment of this court in Onkarji's case [1982] 135 ITR 188 and a single Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in K M. Ramdas's case [1987] 166 ITR 706, which it mistakenly treated as a Division Bench judgment of this court. It accordingly quashed the reference and the notice issued by appellant No. 3 but saved that of appellant No. 2. Hence, these appeals.