COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. R L KASLIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal has referred the above two cases under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 in respect of asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74, which arise out of its order dt. 27th Aug., 1981.

(2.) THE jurisdiction of the WTO to initiate reassessment proceedings is in dispute.

(3.) BOMBAY High Court in the case of Tulsi Das Kika Chand vs. D.R. Chawla (1980) 122 ITR 458 (Bom) has held that the assessment completed on the basis of valuation report of an approved valuer cannot be reopened on the basis of valuation given by the Departmental Valuation Officer giving the higher figure. The view of the BOMBAY High Court has been dissented by Karnataka High Court in Amrit Talkies vs. ITO (1984) 150 ITR 386 (Kar). The view of this Court consistently had been that where no proceedings are pending before the WTO, then no reference to the Valuation Officer can be made under s. 16A. If there is no information as contemplated by s. 17(1)(b) then there could not be valid initiation of proceedings. In the present matter, since assessments of the above two partners/assessees had already been completed, the reference by the WTO under s. 16A for valuing property of the firm M/s Maniram & Sons in respect of Gem Cinema, cannot be considered to have given any right for reopening the completed assessment. Accordingly it is held that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the WTO did not have jurisdiction to initiate the reassessment proceedings and in cancelling the assessment made under s. 17(1)(b) of the WT Act, 1957. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.