TULSIDAS KILACHAND Vs. CHAWLA D R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Shri Tulsidas Kilachand, was assessed for wealth tax since 1957 as "individual" resident of India. The petitioner filed his wealth tax return for the asst. yrs. 1966 67 and 1967 68, and the property assessed for wealth tax, inter alia, included immovable, properties in which the petitioner was holding 1/4th undivided share along with his three brothers. The three properties are situated at Napean Sea Road, Patan, and Kandivli. The petitioner filed his wealth tax, return for the asst. year 1968 69 on 17th Jan., 1969. The 1/4th share of the immovable properties was valued at Rs. 1,55,000 and in support of this valuation an authorised valuation report dt. 25th Jan., 1969, was filed. The petitioner filed his wealth tax return for the asst. year 1969 70 on 16th Nov., 1969, and the properties were valued at Rs. 1,52,250. It is required to be stated that the valuation of properties for the asst. yrs. 1966 67 and 1967 68 were less than what was valued for the subsequent years.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1, the WTO, considered the returns for four years, that is, from asst. yrs. 1966 67 to 1969 70 together and the assessments were completed by an order dt. 3rd May, 1971. The respondent No. 1 accepted the valuation report and held that the share of the petitioner in the three properties should be valued at Rs. 1,55,000. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 completed the assessment of the petitioner for the relevant four years. Subsequently, on 26th March, 1973, and 4th Feb., 1974, the respondent No. 1 served two notices on the petitioner under S. 17(1)(b) of the WT Act, 1957, for reopening the assessment for the asst. yrs. 1968 69 and 1969 70, respectively. The notices do not indicate the reasons which have prompted respondent No. 1 to re open the assessment. The petitioner has filed this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution to challenge the legality and validity of these two notices. The petitioner died during the pendency of this petition on 21st Oct., 1976, leaving behind a will and the legatees have filed an application to be brought on record. I granted the application for amendment.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner, it was contended, and in my judgment rightly, that the action of the respondents in threatening to re open the assessment under S. 17(1)(b) is entirely illegal and misconceived. The provision of S. 17(1)(b) of the WT Act reads as follows :