KASHI PRASAD KATARUKA Vs. WEALTH TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the sole petitioner, who is the owner of a house located adjacent south to Gandhi Maidan bearing holding No. 363, is for quashing of a notice dated July 29, 1983 (annexure 4), to the writ application) issued by the Valuation Officer (respondent No. 2) to the petitioner as modified by letter No. 454 dated August 1, 1983 (annexure 5). By annexure 4, respondent No. 2 directed the petitioner to produce certain documents in order to enable him to determine the fair market value of the aforesaid house as on March 31, 1974 and onwards till March 31, 1982, which, by annexure-5 was modified as March 31, 1979, and onwards till March 31, 1983, under Section 16A(1) of the Wealth-tax Act (for short "the Act").

(2.) THE aforesaid letters were issued under the direction of the Wealth-tax Officer (respondent No, 1) for determination of the fair market value of the aforesaid house in respect of the period mentioned in annexure-5 for the assessment of wealth-tax to be paid by the petitioner.

(3.) IN a counter-affidavit sworn by the Wealth-tax Officer, Special INvestigation Circle, Patna, it has, inter alia, been averred that the Valuation Officer to whom the reference was made is under duty bound to determine the value and it is only thereafter that the question raised by the petitioner can be decided by the Wealth-tax Officer. It has further been asserted that in order to delay the matter, the petitioner is insisting upon the Valuation Officer's deciding the validity or otherwise of the reference made by respondent No. 1. It has further been asserted that the Wealth-tax Officer is not bound to give a hearing to the assessee before he forms the requisite opinion for referring to the Valuation Officer for ascertaining the value. IN paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit, it has been mentioned that the additions have also been made to the house and the entire game of the petitioner is that the additions made to the house should not be brought to the notice of respondent No. 1 before making the assessment.