Delhi H.C : the provisions of s. 17(1) of the WT Act are wholly inapplicable and the action initiated under s. 17(1)(a) is ab initio void and contrary to the provisions of the law and the reassessment framed in consequence of the said action is null and void

Bishambar Lal, for the Petitioner : P.N. Misra & R.C. Pandey, for the Respondent

KIRPAL, J.:

For the asst. yr. 1967-68, the petitioner-assessee seeks the following questions of law to be referred to this Court :

“(1) That, in the facts and circumstances of the case and under the law, the provisions of s. 17(1) of the WT Act are wholly inapplicable and the action initiated under s. 17(1)(a) is ab initio void and contrary to the provisions of the law and the reassessment framed in consequence of the said action is null and void ?

(2) That, in the facts and circumstances of the case and under the law, since the AAC held that the action under s. 17(1)(a) was itself invalid, the provisions of s. 23(3A) are inapplicable, and even so, since the ITO relied upon the valuation report of the Departmental valuer in the case of a coowner and no separate valuation was made in the case of the assessee ?

(3) That, under the facts and circumstances of the case and under law, the value of the property at 31-40/708, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, which was a fully tenanted property and in which the assessee in the original assessment at a total value of Rs. 1,20,000 and there is no justification for any action to assess the property at a higher value which would be totally against the accepted principle of valuation in the case of tenanted properties ?”

2. It appears that the assessment was made in respect of the property at Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, in which the petitioner is a co-owner. Subsequently, a notice was issued under s. 17(1)(a) seeking to reopen the assessment. It was the case of the WTO that this property was previously in slum areas and subsequently it had been released from the slum areas and this fact had not been disclosed by the assessee. The WTO then passed the order of reassessment. Against this, an appeal was filed to the Asstt. CWT. The Asstt. CWT came to the conclusion that the reassessment ought not to have been ordered and even the Valuation Officer had accepted the value given by the assessee.

The Department filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that, while deciding the merits of the case, the Asstt. CWT ought to have applied the provisions of s. 23(3A) of the WT Act and given an opportunity to the Departmental Valuation Officer to be heard. The Tribunal also observed that the Asstt. CWT had not taken into consideration the fact that the property had been released from the Slum and Housing Department.

The Tribunal did not dispose of the appeal on merits but by its order dt. 23rd Aug., 1984, had remanded the case to the Asstt. CWT. The Asstt. CWT, therefore, had to decide whether notice under s. 17(1)(a) was validly issued, keeping in view the fact that the property had been released by the Slum and Housing Department and, secondly, whether, on merits, the value of the property had been properly fixed. The Tribunal not having taken any decision on merits and the case having been remanded, we feel that the present petition is premature. The assessee had an opportunity of raising all contentions before the Asstt. CWT and, if the assessee succeeds, he can have no grievance. This petition is dismissed. No costs.

[Citation :182 ITR 231]