C W T Vs. SITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the Revenue.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondent has not appeared on previous two occasions and the matter was adjourned on last two hearing. THE matter was heard during the course of the day, but has been kept pending as an opportunity to the respondents to avail for putting its case before the Court, assistance. Today at commencement of the day, Mr. Mahendra Trivedi for the respondent has appeared only to seek adjournment which was declined. THEreafter Mr. Trivedi withdrew himself from the Court and did not appear.

(3.) THE three fold contentions were raised before the Commissioner against the proposed action under Section 25. Firstly, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment under Section 17 (1) on 28. 9. 89 and, therefore, the assessment orders lost their existence for all practical purpose and no order could have been made under Section 25 (2); secondly report of Valuation Officer cannot be considered as part of record of assessment, because no assessment was pending when the two references was made to Departmental Valuation Officer inasmuch as neither any returns were filed nor any statutory notices were served on the assessee; to institute any proceedings which could be said to be pending during which reference to D. V. O. could have been made under Section 16-A, lastly references made by the Wealth Tax Officer were not valid as the same were made in the case of Firm Ashoka Palace Hotel and notices were issued to the firm but no notices were issued to the partners of the firm. Such valuation made by giving notice to the firm only, which is not at all an assessable entity, could not be considered as material on record of assessee's Wealth Tax file.