COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. SHIVARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three taxation cases are being disposed of by a consolidated order, as in all the three taxation cases the parties are the same and the cases have been argued by the same set of lawyers and all the three taxation cases relate to the same assessment year 1965-66. Taxation Case No. 263 of 1976 relates to the second reassessment under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Taxation Case No. 83 of 1974 relates to the penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act. Taxation Case No. 52 of 1974 relates to the allowance of tax liability for the assessment year 1965-1966. Taxation Cases Nos. 83 of 1974 and 52 of 1974 depend on the decision in Taxation Case No. 263 of 1976. Under such circumstances, I proceed to decide Taxation Case No. 263 of 1976 first.

(2.) THE facts of Taxation Case No. 263 of 1976 may be briefly culled from the statement of the case. THE assessce is an individual and the valuation date for the assessment year 1965-66 is November 4, 1964. THE original assessment order under Section 16(3) of the Act was made on October 28, 1965, on a total wealth of Rs. 5,27,132. A copy of the original assessment order has been annexed and marked as annexure-A forming part of the statement of the case in Taxation Case No. 52 of 1974.

(3.) THE departmental representative before the Tribunal supported the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, He stated that the case was not reopened under Section 17(b) but under Section 17(a) of the Act. He stated that the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all facts necessary for the assessment of his net wealth in the original return filed by him on September 30, 1965, and that the material fact was the ownership of the Premium Prize Bonds in question. This wealth escaped assessment even after the first reassessment on March 25, 1965. THE departmental representative argued before the Tribunal that the escapement of the value of Premium Prize Bonds in question was the direct result of the omission of the assessee to declare the same in the original return. THE departmental representative further stated that when the Wealth-tax Officer made the first reassessment on March 25, 1966, he did not include the value of the Premium Prize Bonds in question on the erroneous belief that the same was exempt from tax and when he found the error, he took steps to reassess the wealth for the second time.