B.P.Jeevan Reddy, C.J. - (1.) Under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal has stated the following questions in respect of the assessment years 1965-66 to 1967-68 : -"( 1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the assessments for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70 made by the Wealth-tax Officer under the provisions of Section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessee's failure to disclose all primary facts in some of the years and her disclosure of only part of the primary facts in other years ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the assessment orders on the one hand and in directing the Wealth-tax Officer to estimate the value of properties in a particular manner on the other hand ?" Similarly, with respect to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the following two questions have been referred : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in quashing the assessment in respect of the mining lease rights on the view that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was based only in respect of the Katghar house ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in law in holding that the reassessment was without jurisdiction in respect of the Katghar house ?" The assessee is an individual. The assessment years concerned herein are 1965-66 to 1969-70. According to the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal, assessments for these years were originally completed including in the net wealth of the assessee the value of the property at 22, Katghar Road, Allahabad. The value of the said asset was taken at Rs. 16,640 as disclosed by the assessee. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1970-71, the Wealth-tax Officer came to know that the assessee had gifted two plots out of the open land attached to the said property, the value of which was shown as Rs. 1,63,175. The Wealth-tax Officer was, accordingly, of the view that the value of this property had been understated and underassessed. Accordingly, he reopened the assessment under Section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. In these reassessment proceedings, the said asset was valued at Rs. 4,66,020. In addition thereto, it was found that there are certain minerals in another land and a lease was granted for quarrying the same. He included the value of the leasehold right (valued at Rs. 2,52,000) to the assessee's wealth.
(2.) The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which was dismissed. The assessee then carried the matter to the Tribunal in further appeal. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the reopening of the assessment under Section 17 was bad. The Tribunal opined that the assessee cannot be said to have failed to furnish full particulars of the said asset during the original assessment proceedings. Merely because during the subsequent assessment proceedings, the value was found to be higher, it is no ground for reopening the assessment, said the Tribunal. The Tribunal also went into the merits of the question, namely, the 'question of valuation and expressed its opinion. Thereupon, the Revenue applied for and obtained this reference.
(3.) Under Section 17(1) (a) of the Wealth-tax Act, an assessment can be reopened if the Wealth-tax Officer has reason to believe that by reason of omission or failure on the part of any person to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of his net wealth, net wealth chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year. The question, therefore, is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee cannot be said to be guilty of failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of her net wealth. The statement of case says that the assessee had disclosed this asset in her returns. She had also disclosed its value as Rs. 16,640. It is no doubt true that she did not disclose the extent of the property but the question is, was she bound to do so. It is one thing to say that the assessee could have disclosed all those particulars and yet another thing to say that she ought to have disclosed those particulars. For this purpose, we called upon learned standing counsel to make available to us a pro forma of the wealth-tax return in vogue for the said assessment years. He has, accordingly, produced the same which we have perused.;