Lodha, J. -
(1.)IN all these writ petitions, common questions of law are involved and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. They relate to matters of proceedings under Section 17 of the W.T. Act (hereinafter called "the Act "). The relevant years in all these cases are assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. The original assessments under the Act of all these petitioners-assessees were made on December 20, 1969, for the year 1969-70. For the year 1970-71, the assessment of Shri Jabarmal was made on February 27, 1971, and in the cases of other petitioners it was made on January 23, 1971.
(2.)EARLIER, the assessees had filed their returns for the year 1968-69 showing the net wealth including jewellery and gold and silver ornaments, the valuation of which was based on the certificate of M/s. Ramnik M. Javeri & Co. Bombay, approved valuer. This return was accepted by the WTO but exemption was not granted to the petitioners although they claimed that jewellery was exempt from wealth-tax under Section 5(1)(viii) of the Act at the relevant time.
Based on the same valuation, the assessees filed their returns for the year 1969-70 and they were also accepted as per the assessment order, dated December 20, 1969. As already stated above, the claim of exemption of the assessees-petitioners was initially rejected by the assessing authority, i.e., the WTO, but later it was accepted on appeal but again on account of the amendment in Section 5(1)(viii) retrospectively w.e.f. April 1, 1963, the matter of Smt. Saroj Devi for the year 1969-70 was settled by a reassessment order, dated March 26, 1973, and those of the others by rectification orders, dated December, 27, 1971, and the jewellery and ornaments, accepting their valuation as furnished by the assessees, were brought to tax. Similarly, the valuation of the jewellery shown in the returns filed for the year 1970-71 were accepted by the WTO.
Later, when the assessees filed their returns for the year 1971-72, valuing their ornaments and jewellery at much higher figures in comparison to the valuations of the years 1969-70 and 1970-71, it appears that the wealth-tax authorities entertained a suspicion that the valuation disclosed by the assessees for the years 1969-70 and 1970-71 were much too low and it also appears that some audit objections were raised in respect of the assessments of those years and the higher authorities directed the WTO to get the ornaments and jewellery revalued by the assessees. It, therefore, appears that the WTO issued notices to the assessees on November 16, 1973, asking them to explain the difference in the valuations and in that connection, he made three queries from the assessees, viz., (i) whether they had added some jewellery, (ii) whether they had changed certain items and replaced them by other items, and (iii) what were the reasons for the steep increase in the valuation. The assessees furnished their replies to these notices explaining that they had based the valuations on the report of the approved valuer and had also indicated the addition or decrease in the items whenever it took place while the returns were filed. They also alleged that there was a steep rise of price in selected jewellery in the year 1971 and in that respect they furnished the certificate of M/s. Chottalal Amulakh & Mohanlal of Calcutta, approved valuers. Even thereafter, the WTO, under the directions of the higher authorities, still required them, to get the jewellery revalued for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1971-72, by his notice, dated January 12, 1976. The petitioners objected to this and replied that the valuation had already been got made by approved valuers and the reports of the valuation had already been filed along with the returns. The WTO even then issued another notice, dated January 19, 1976, asking the assessees to get the jewellery revalued for the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71, 1972-73 and 1973-74. The petitioners again resisted this by their letters, dated January 22, 1976. The WTO even then did not desist and ultimately he issued notice under Section 17 of the Act to the assessees on April 13, 1976, asking them to file their returns of net wealth chargeable to tax as he proposed to reassess the said net wealth for the relevant years already referred to above. The petitioners-assessees resisted this and filed their objections on May 15, 1976. The WTO, however, did not pay heed to these objections and, therefore, the petitioners approached this court asking for quashing the notices to the petitioners issued by the WTO on April 13, 1976, and restraining him from taking any proceedings in pursuance of those notices.
The case of the petitioners is that proceedings under Section 17 could not have been initiated against the petitioners in these circumstances because if the proceedings are deemed to be under Section 17(1)(b), they were clearly barred by time since more than four years from the end of the relevant assessment years had already expired before these notices were issued and thereafter the WTO had no jurisdiction to issue such notices under Section 17(1)(b). If the proceedings are deemed to be under Section 17(1)(a), then as the petitioners had already furnished the returns, the first part of that section is not applicable and as the petitioners were not guilty of not disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of their net wealth, the second part of Section 17(1)(a) was not attracted.
The Revenue has filed a return to the writ application and it has been stated that the notice under Section 17 has been issued under Clause (1)(a) of that section, as the petitioners-assessees had not disclosed true and correct valuation of the jewellery in their returns of wealth and they had filed false and incorrect returns of valuation of their jewellery resulting in underassessment. An objection was also raised that the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution as they have not exhausted their remedies before the Department itself.
(3.)FROM the above facts, it is apparently clear that, according to the Department, the proceedings against the petitioners are sought to be taken under Section 17(1)(a) and that too for the alleged non-disclosure of true and material facts. Therefore, the question for consideration before me is now very much limited.
Before I come to the merits of the matter, I may at once state that the objection that the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this court under art, 226 of the Constitution cannot be sustained in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO 41 ITR 191. In that case, a similar objection was raised but it was turned down by their Lordships in the following terms (p. 208):
" In the present case the company contends that the conditions precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 34 were not satisfied and came to the court at the earliest opportunity. There is nothing in its conduct which would justify the refusal of proper relief under Article 226. When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief, it becomes the duty of the courts to give such relief in fit cases and the courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons. In the present case we can find no reason for which relief should be refused.
We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the company was entitled to an order directing the Income-tax Officer not to take any action on the basis of the three impugned notices. "
We, have therefore, to see whether the action of the WTO in issuing notices under Section 17 in the above circumstances was within his jurisdiction or not and, in this connection, the observations of their Lordships in this very authority are very material. The jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 17, is for all purposes the same as under Section 34 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. Referring to that Section 34, their Lordships observed that the two conditions, which are conditions precedent for these proceedings are; (1)that the ITO must have reason to believe that income, profits and gains chargeable to tax have been under-assessed and the second is that he must have also reason to believe that such under-assessment has occurred by reason of either, (1) omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return of his income, or (ii) omission or failure on the part of an assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year. According to their Lordships, unless both these conditions are fulfilled, the assessing authority will have no jurisdiction to issue a notice for the assessment or reassessment beyond the period of four years but within the period of eight years, from the end of the year in question. Then their Lordships further pointed out that where the assessee discloses the primary facts fully and truly, he has done his duty and he has nothing further to do and, in that case, he cannot be proceeded against under Section 34(1) of the I.T. Act as the case was before their Lordships. This view has further been reiterated in ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das  103 ITR 437 (SC), and also by our own court in Purushottam Das Bangur v. ITO  126 ITR 580. I am purposely not discussing the matter in detail as, in my opinion, the present cases are fully governed by these authorities I have already referred to above and no useful purpose would be served by multiplying the authorities. It is, therefore, clear that the assessees cannot be proceeded against under Section 17(1)(a) of the W.T. Act also if they have fully and truly disclosed all the material facts.