LAWS(P&H)-2005-2-102

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. ANIL TAYAL

Decided On February 08, 2005
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Appellant
V/S
Anil Tayal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN exercise of its power under Section 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'), Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', Delhi (for short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court in relation to asst. yrs. 1979 -80 and 1980 -81 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the order passed by the then CWT under Section 25(2) of the WT Act, 1957 ?'

(2.) FOR deciding the aforementioned question, we have taken the facts from the statement of the case sent by the Tribunal in this reference and WT Ref. No. 2 of 1999, which relates to levy of penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act for the asst. yr. 1979 -80, which is being disposed of by a separate order.

(3.) AFTER more than one year of the submission of the valuation report, the assessee filed return dt. 7th March, 1986, declaring his net wealth at Rs. 2,26,000. The WTO, vide his order dt. 21st March, 1986, framed the assessment. He accepted the report of the registered valuer submitted by the assessee and determined the value of his property at Rs. 7,34,194. While doing so, he ignored valuation report dt. 14th March, 1985, submitted by the DVO. By taking note of this lapse, CWT, Rohtak (hereinafter described as 'the Commissioner'), initiated proceedings under Section 25(2). He issued notice dt. 22nd Dec., 1987, to the assessee which was duly received by him. On 5th Jan., 1988, Shri Kanwal Nain Sharma appeared on behalf of the assessee and sought adjournment on the ground that the assessee had gone to Kanpur. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 19th Jan., 1988, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the Commissioner proceeded ex parte and vide his order dt. 26th Feb., 1988, he enhanced the value of the assessee's wealth by Rs. 8,24,806. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and held that report dt. 14th March, 1985, could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing wealth because till the filing of return, the WTO did not have the jurisdiction to make reference to the Valuation Officer under Section 16A of the Act. The Tribunal then referred to Section 17A(1)(b) of the Act and held that the WTO did not have the jurisdiction to frame assessment after expiry of 4 years from the date of filing of return or revised return.