B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C. J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions are filed by Sri Rajan Lal questioning the notices dated November 6, 1987, issued under Section 17(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, proposing to reopen the wealth-tax assessments of the petitioner relating to the assessment years 1979-80 to 1986-87. It would be sufficient if we state the facts of Writ Petition No. 53 of 1988.
(2.) THE petitioner is a wealth-tax assessee. One of the assets held by him is an open plot of land measuring 300 sq. yards situated in Greater Kailash locality of New Delhi. He has been disclosing this asset and its value from the very beginning. Indeed, he has been increasing its value in each consecutive year. It was valued at Rs. 60,000 for the assessment year 1976-77, at Rs. 75,000 for the assessment year 1980-81 and at Rs. 3,00,000 for the assessment year 1986-87. On each occasion, his return was supported by the report of an approved valuer and the valuation placed upon the plot in question was accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer and assessments made. While so, the petitioner entered into an agreement with a third party, agreeing to sell the said plot of land for a consideration of twenty-five lakhs of rupees. THE agreement was entered into in the year 1986. With a view to enable him to execute a sale deed, he applied to the Income-tax Department for an income-tax clearance certificate. From the contents of the application for the clearance certificate, the Wealth-tax Officer came to know that the said plot was being sold for rupees twenty-five lakhs. THEreupon he issued the impugned notices proposing to value the plot in question on the basis of the said consideration amount for all the assessment years 1979-80 to 1986-87. The petitioner's contention is that there was no concealment or failure to disclose this asset or its value on his part in any of the said assessment years and, therefore, the notice issued proposing to revise the assessment in respect of the previous eight years in incompetent and beyond the jurisdiction of the Wealth-tax Officer. With a view to satisfy ourselves as to the reasons for and the basis of the impugned notices, we called upon learned standing counsel for the Revenue to place the relevant record before us, which he has, accordingly, done. The record discloses the following reasons behind the impugned notices : "Application for issue of certificate under Section 230A of the Income-tax Act received. The plot of land at Greater Kailash is being sold for rupees twenty-five lakhs. Its value as on March 31, 1986, has been shown at rupees three lakhs. For earlier years, the value has been shown even less. I have, therefore, reason to believe that, owing to omission on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment of his wealth, his net wealth has escaped assessment by way of under-assessment. Issue notices under Section 17(1)(a) for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1986-87. (Sd.)andnbsp; andnbsp; andnbsp; andnbsp; Wealth-tax Officer."
(3.) THE impugned notice does not, however, specify whether it is issued under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 17(1) as it stood on the date it was issued. It merely recited Section 17. But, from the fact that assessments for eight years are sought to be reopened, it would be evident that the notice is relatable to Clause (a) of Section 17(1). In any event, the reasons recorded in the relevant file put the matter beyond doubt. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vikram Gulati, contended that there was no omission or failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of his net wealth within the meaning of Clause (a) of Section 17(1) and, therefore, the Wealth-tax Officer has no jurisdiction to reopen his assessment under the said clause. He relied upon several decisions in support of his contention including the decision of the Delhi High Court in Avtar Singh Sandhu v. WTO [1981] 129 ITR 531. He submitted further that once it is found that the notice under Clause (a) of Section 17(1) is unsustainable in law, it cannot be sustained under Clause (b) of Section 17(1). In support of this proposition, he relied upon the decision of this court in Raghubar Dayal Ram Kishan v. CIT[1967] 63 ITR 572,;