High Court Of Madras
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. Smt. R. Jayalakshmi
Sections WT 17(1)(b)
Asst. Year 1985-86, 1986-87
N.V. Balasubramanian & K. Raviraja Pandian, JJ.
Tax Case Nos. 338 & 339 of 1999
19th December, 2002
Counsel Appeared
T. Ravi Kumar, for the Revenue : None, for the Assessee
JUDGMENT
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. :
In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following common question of law for our consideration :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, the Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the assessments under s. 17 of the WT Act, as being made without jurisdiction ?”
The assessment years involved are 1985-86 and 1986-87.
The assessee is an individual. She got an undivided interest in a property known as “Ashok Bhavan”. The WTO originally completed the assessment for both the asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 198687 under s. 16(1) of the WT Act, 1957. However, the assessee filed revised returns for both the assessment years and on the basis of the revised returns, the WTO completed the assessments under s. 16(2) of the WT Act. Subsequently, the officer reopened the assessments under s. 17 of the WT Act and also completed the reassessment. The assessee aggrieved by the orders of reassessment, approached the CWT(A) and the CWT(A) upheld the jurisdiction of the WTO to reopen the assessments and dismissed the appeals preferred by the assessee. The assessee carried the matter in further appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following its own order rendered in the case of another co-owner by name T.M. Ramaswamy, has recorded a finding of fact that the AO had necessary information of the sale of the property, which fetched a higher price before framing the assessment based on the revised return and the WTO has no other new information for reopening the assessment under s. 17 of the WT Act. The Tribunal, therefore, held that in the absence of any new information, the WTO has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue filed a reference application before the Tribunal to state a case and refer the questions of law set out earlier. The Tribunal found that no question of law arose out of the order. However, on the basis of the directions of this Court, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the questions of law set out earlier.
We heard Mr. T. Ravi Kumar, learned junior standing counsel for the Revenue. The assessee has been served, but there is no representation on behalf of the assessee. We have also carefully perused the records. The CWT, Tamil Nadu V, Chennai is not able to inform the Court whether the Department has accepted the order of the Tribunal rendered in the case of another co-owner T.M. Ramaswamy in spite of the opportunity given. Be that as it may, it is seen from the order of the Tribunal that the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the WTO had all the necessary information regarding the factum of sale, which fetched a higher price, while completing the assessment under s. 16(2) of the WT Act and there was no other information at all before him to clothe him with the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under s. 17 of the WT Act. The Tribunal also found that it is not a case of falling under s. 17(1)(a) of the WT Act, but a case falling under s. 17(1)(b) of the Act and in the absence of any information, we hold that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the WTO had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under s. 17(1)(b) of the WT Act. Counsel for the Revenue has not advanced any other argument. We find the finding of Tribunal is based on fact arrived at on analysis of materials on record and we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the common question of law referred to us is required to be and is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. However, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
[Citation : 260 ITR 356]