Back
High Court Of Calcutta
M. N. Roy
RAJESHWARI BIRLA - Appellant
Versus
WEALTH-TAX OFFICER, h WARD - Respondent
Civil Rule 3312 (W) Of 1974
Decided On : 05/26/1978
The petitioner, an assessee under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, filed her return for the assessment year 1968-69, claiming to have fully and truly disclosed all material particulars of her net wealth chargeable to tax. The Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) issued a notice under Section 16(2) of the Act, requiring her to furnish further information and produce documents in respect of her return. The petitioner appeared before the WTO and denied the allegations made in the notice. Subsequently, the WTO issued another notice under Section 16(2) for furnishing further information and production of documents. The petitioner again appeared before the WTO and denied the allegations. Thereafter, the WTO issued a notice under Section 17 of the Act, alleging that he had reason to believe that the net wealth of the petitioner chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1968-69 had escaped assessment. The petitioner filed a return along with a letter denying the allegations made in the notice. The WTO issued a further notice under Section 16(2) for furnishing further information and production of documents. The petitioner appeared before the WTO and denied the allegations. The WTO completed the assessment by taking the value of the shares at Rs. 12.63 per share. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the impugned notices and the assessment order. The High Court held that the WTO had no reason to believe that any wealth chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1968-69 had escaped assessment, that the alleged belief of the WTO was a mere pretence, and that there was no material on the basis of which the WTO could entertain any belief that any wealth of the petitioner chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The High Court also held that the WTO had no authority, power, competence, and jurisdiction to purport to reopen and thereby unsettle an existing fact, which was duly determined by his predecessor-in-office, on proper materials and in exercise of his due jurisdiction. The High Court quashed the impugned notices and the assessment order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an assessee under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, filed her return for the assessment year 1968-69, claiming to have fully and truly disclosed all material particulars of her net wealth chargeable to tax. The Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) issued a notice under Section 16(2) of the Act, requiring her to furnish further information and produce documents in respect of her return. The petitioner appeared before the WTO and denied the allegations made in the notice. Subsequently, the WTO issued another notice under Section 16(2) for furnishing further information and production of documents. The petitioner again appeared before the WTO and denied the allegations. Thereafter, the WTO issued a notice under Section 17 of the Act, alleging that he had reason to believe that the net wealth of the petitioner chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1968-69 had escaped assessment. The petitioner filed a return along with a letter denying the allegations made in the notice. The WTO issued a further notice under Section 16(2) for furnishing further information and production of documents. The petitioner appeared before the WTO and denied the allegations. The WTO completed the assessment by taking the value of the shares at Rs. 12.63 per share. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the impugned notices and the assessment order.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the WTO had no reason to believe that any wealth chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1968-69 had escaped assessment, that the alleged belief of the WTO was a mere pretence, and that there was no material on the basis of which the WTO could entertain any belief that any wealth of the petitioner chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The High Court also held that the WTO had no authority, power, competence, and jurisdiction to purport to reopen and thereby unsettle an existing fact, which was duly determined by his predecessor-in-office, on proper materials and in exercise of his due jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the WTO had reason to believe that any wealth chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1968-69 had escaped assessment? 2. Whether the alleged belief of the WTO was a mere pretence? 3. Whether there was any material on the basis of which the WTO could entertain any belief that any wealth of the petitioner chargeable to tax had escaped assessment? 4. Whether the WTO had authority, power, competence, and jurisdiction to purport to reopen and thereby unsettle an existing fact, which was duly determined by his predecessor-in-office, on proper materials and in exercise of his due jurisdiction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the WTO had no reason to believe that any wealth chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1968-69 had escaped assessment. 2. The High Court held that the alleged belief of the WTO was a mere pretence. 3. The High Court held that there was no material on the basis of which the WTO could entertain any belief that any wealth of the petitioner chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. 4. The High Court held that the WTO had no authority, power, competence, and jurisdiction to purport to reopen and thereby unsettle an existing fact, which was duly determined by his predecessor-in-office, on proper materials and in exercise of his due jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the impugned notices and the assessment order.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is admittedly an assessee under the provisions of the W. T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), in respect of her share held in various companies, deposits in banks and jewelleries. For the assessment year 1968-69, the relevant valuation date being March 31, 1968, she filed her return of net wealth before the WTO concerned, being respondent No, 3, She has claimed that in her return she fully and truly disclosed all the material particulars of her net wealth chargeable to tax under the said Act. She has also claimed that along with such return, she filed a statement of net wealth as on March 31, 1968.
( 2 ) BY a notice under Section 16 (2) of the said Act, which is to the following effect :"section 16. (2) If the Wealth-tax Officer is not so satisfied, he shall serve a notice on the assessee either to attend in person at his office on a date to be specified in the notice or to produce or cause to be produced on that date any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of his return ", the WTO, ' G ' Ward, being respondent No. 1, required her to furnish further information and produce documents, accounts and other evidence in respect of her return. The petitioner has stated that in response thereto, her authorised representaive appeared before the said respondent No. 2 produced the necessary bank account, market quotations and balance-sheets of the various companies in which she held the shares and filed before the WTO concerned, the valuation return from the approved valuer in respect of shares in companies, which were unquoted and explained the said return, apart from the basis of the valuation of her assets and as held by her. There has been a categorical statement that the petitioner has fully and truly disclosed before the said respondent No. 1, the material and relevant particulars for the assessment and there was no omission or failure on her part to disclose any material or relevant facts necessary for the assessment.
( 3 ) IT appears that the said respondent No. 2 passed an order of assessment under Section 16 (3) ot the said Act, which is to the following effect :"16. (3) The Wealth-tax Officer, after hearing such evidence as the person may produce and such other evidence as he may require on any specified points, and after taking into account all relevant material which the Wealth-tax Officer has gathered, shall, by order in writing, assess the net wealth of the assessee and determine the amount of wealth-tax payable by him or the amount refundable to him on the basis of such assessment", for the assessment year 1968-69, determining thereby the net wealth of the petitioner at Rs. 9,20,477. Such determination has been contended by the petitioner to be made by the said respondent No. 2 after fully investigating the matter and examining all relevant facts and materials, which were disclosed by her in her return and in the course of assessment proceeding. Apart from relying on such materials, which the said respondent No. 2 considered necessary and relevant for the purpose of estimating the net wealth of the petitioner under Section 7 of the said Act, which is to the following effect :"section 7. Value of assets how to be determined.-- (1) Subject to any rules made in this behalf, 'the value of any asset, other than cash, for the purposes of this Act, shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Wealth-tax Officer it would fetch if sold In the open market on the valuation date. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),-- (a) where the assessee is carrying on a business for which accounts are maintained by him regularly, the Wealth-tax Officer may, instead of determining separately the value of each asset held by the assessee in such business, determine the net value of the assets of the business as a whole having regard to the balance-sheet of such business as on the valuation date and making such adjustments therein as may
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
