SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(Cal) 96

High Court Of Calcutta
M. N. Roy
SMT.UMA DEBI JHAWAR - Appellant
Versus
WEALTH-TAX OFFICER - Respondent
Civil Rule 6929 (W)  Of  1976
Decided On : 03/22/1982

Advocates Appeared:
D.PAL, P.L.KHAITAN, R.Murarka, R.PRASAD, SAMAR BANERJI

Section 16a of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 can be resorted to only in relation to pending assessment or reassessment proceedings.

Headnote:

WEALTH TAX - Reference to Valuation Officer - Conditions Precedent - Pending Assessment - Section 16a of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner purchased a plot of land and constructed a building thereon. She was assessed under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (W. T. Act) for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1972-73. The assessments were made on the basis of valuations made by the petitioner's valuer and the department's valuer. The petitioner filed appeals against the assessments, which were dismissed. On 31st July, 1975, the authorities sought to review and revise the valuation for the purposes of both the W. T. Act and the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner was served with a notice on 12th January, 1976, informing her that the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) had referred the question of determination of the fair market value of the premises and the structure to the Valuation Officer under Section 16a of the W. T. Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the reference made by the WTO to the Valuation Officer was without jurisdiction as there was no pending assessment or reassessment proceeding for the assessment years in question. The court observed that Section 16a of the W. T. Act could be resorted to only in relation to pending proceedings and that the opening phrase “for the purpose of making an assessment” in Section 16a (1) and the phrase “proceed to complete the assessment in conformity with the order under Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (5) of the Valuation Officer” in Sub-section (6) of Section 16a shows that the pendency of an assessment including a reassessment is a sine qua non for the giving of jurisdiction to the WTO to make a reference under Section 16a.

Issues: Whether the reference made by the WTO to the Valuation Officer under Section 16a of the W. T. Act was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reference made by the WTO to the Valuation Officer was without jurisdiction as there was no pending assessment or reassessment proceeding for the assessment years in question. The court observed that Section 16a of the W. T. Act could be resorted to only in relation to pending proceedings and that the opening phrase “for the purpose of making an assessment” in Section 16a (1) and the phrase “proceed to complete the assessment in conformity with the order under Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (5) of the Valuation Officer” in Sub-section (6) of Section 16a shows that the pendency of an assessment including a reassessment is a sine qua non for the giving of jurisdiction to the WTO to make a reference under Section 16a.

Final Decision: The rule was made absolute and the reference made by the WTO to the Valuation Officer was quashed.

M. N. ROY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner purchased a plot of laud being premises No. 42b, Garcha Road, subsequently numbered and renamed as 51e, Gariahat Road (hereinafter referred to as the "said premises" ). The area of the said premises has been stated to be 1 bigha, 19 cottahs, 11 chitaks and 3 sq. ft. Such purchase was made from one Smt. Latika Ghose of 80/5b, Lansdown Road, Calcutta. The petitioner has stated that in or about July, 1966, she started construction of a building on the said premises and such construction was completed in or about October, 1968, at a total cost of about Rs. 2,46,363. 11. It has also been stated by the petitioner that she was all along and since the assessment year 1958-59, assessed under the provisions of the W. T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act" ).

( 2 ) IT has further been stated by the petitioner that in the course of assessment proceedings under the provisions of the I. T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1967-68, she furnished to the ITO concerned, who is also the WTO concerned, being respondent No. 1, the details of the cost of construction of the building, along with a valuation report dated 21st November, 1968, from M/s. J. Ganguli and Co. , an approved valuer of this court. It has been stated that in the I. T. assessment for the assessment year 1969-70, the officer concerned assessed the petitioner on the difference between the cost of construction as mentioned hereinbefore and the valuation as made by the approved valuer. The difference as mentioned above was found to be Rs. 48,182 and, on appeal, such determination and the assessment as made, was set aside.

( 3 ) IT would appear that for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1972-73, the petitioner filed before the appropriate officer, the said valuation report dated 21st November, 1968, and the officer concerned referred the matter of valuation of the property to the valuation cell of the I. T. dept. for the purpose of assessment of the petitioner. The Valuation Officer concerned, by his report dated 20th July, 1972, valued the said premises for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1966-67. The petitioner has given the particulars of valuation per cottah as per her valuer's report and that of the valuer of the department, for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1972-73. She has further stated that, thereafter, the respondent-officer, assessed for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1972-73, under Section 16 (3) of the said Act. Section 16 of the said Act deals with assessment and Sub-section (3) thereunder lays down that the WTO, after hearing and considering 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 WTO 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. It has further been stated that in the assessment, the officer concerned adopted the value of the said premises on the basis of the valuation as made by the valuer for the revenue and valued the building thereon, on the basis of the valuation of the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE assessments, as made, were appealed against and by an order dated 16th April, 1974, the appeals were dismissed, holding, inter alia, that the valuation as made by the valuer of the revenue was appropriate and thus the assessments made on that basis were also due and proper. On still further appeals, such order as made, was maintained, by an order dated 24th June, 1975.

( 5 ) IT has been alleged by the petitioner that in spite of such assessments under the said Act and the I. T. Act, 1961, the authorities concerned, who are respondents herein, were seeking to review and revise the valuation for the purposes of both the Acts as mentioned above and with that end in view, on 31st July, 1975, they caused an investigation into the matter, to be m

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top