COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. KAVIRAJ MAHIPAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five applications relate to consecutive assessment years 1971-72 to 1975-76 in respect of the assessment of wealth-tax of Kaviraj Mahipat Singh, Kota (hereinafter referred to as " the assessee")' As these five applications arise in similar circumstances and raise a common question, they are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE Wealth-tax Officer, after the assessments of the assessee in respect of the assessment years 1971-72 to 1975-76 were completed, initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, by issuing notices dated March 15, 1978. THE Wealth-tax Officer expressed the opinion that the value of the portion of the Mardana Mahal and compensation money aggregating to Rs. 6,60,000, representing the difference between the value of the properties as shown by the assessee and as determined by the valuation cell, had escaped assessment by the assessing authority. THE Wealth-tax Officer then made reassessment orders after adding the value of the Mardana Mahal and the amount of compensation received by the assessee. It may be observed that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of the report of the revenue audit party. On appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Kota Range, Kota, held that the proceedings under Section 17(1)(a) were not validly initiated by the assessing authority as in his view all the material facts necessary for assessment in respect of the value , of the Mardana Mahal were duly disclosed by the assessee to the Wealth-tax Officer at the stage of the original assessment and there is no omission or failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing any material fact necessary for making the assessment. As regards the amount of compensation, it was held that the assessee had disclosed the amount of compensation received by him under the voluntary disclosure scheme and that the amount of compensation had already been taxed by the Department both for the purpose of income-tax and wealth-tax. THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that it could not be held that a part of the wealth of the assessee had escaped assessment due to any failure or omission on his part to disclose the material facts.

(3.) WE, therefore, agree with the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that no question of law arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal on July 24, 1980, approving the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner setting aside the reassessment proceedings in respect of the assessment years 1971-72 to 1975-76.