R.K.AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) THE ITAT, Allahabad has referred the following questions of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth -tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this Court '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that provisions of section 17(2) of the Wealth Tax Act did not apply in assessee's case as initiation of proceedings was held to be incidental only and not in consequence of a finding or direction as required under sub -section(2) of section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957?
(2.) WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that provisions of section 17(2) of the Wealth Tax Act do not cover a determination of wealth in respect of an year other than the assessment year under enquiry or the liability of a person who was not a party to reassessment proceedings because action under section 17(2) initiated in the case of assessee was in consequence of a finding 'given in the case of her husband Raja Y.D. Dubey?' 2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1963 -64 to 1976 -77. At the outset it may be mentioned here that in the array of parties Raja Y.D. Dubey has been arrayed as a respondent though the present reference relates to late Rani Dayawati Devi wife of Raja Y.D. Dubey who is the heir and legal representative of late Rani Dayawati Devi. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows : The respondent late Rani Dayawati Devi owned 5 properties at Hussainabad, Jaunpur, the value of which was included in the net wealth of Raja Y.D. Dubey, Hindu undivided family, for the assessment years 1963 -64 to 1976 -77, which order was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Raja Y.D. Dubey has preferred division under section 25(1) of the Act before the Commissioner of Wealth -tax, which was disposed of by the Commissioner vide order dated 8 -3 -1979 and the assessment order was set aside and restored to the file of the WTO. Fresh assessment orders were framed. The Hindu undivided family filed appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and it was claimed by Raja Y.D. Dubey that Hussainabad properties actually belonged to Rani Dayawati Devi, his wife, and the same has been wrongly included in the wealth of the Hindu undivided family. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was of the view that the matter required proper enquiry and verification. He, therefore, set aside the matter to the WTO for fresh decision after making proper enquiry, vide order (dated 29 -3 -1984). The WTO while framing the assessment, had held that the 5 houses at Hussainabad exclusively belonged to Rani Dayawati Devi as per assessment order dated 23 -1 -1986 and, therefore, the value of these houses were excluded from the total wealth of Hindu undivided family. On the same date, i.e., 23 -1 -1986, the WTO initiated action under section 17 of the Act against Rani Dayawati Devi, that the wealth has escaped assessment because no assessment had been made for the assessment years 1963 -64 to 1976 -77 in respect of the value of Hussainabad properties. He after giving an opportunity of hearing to late Rani Dayawati Devi completed the assessment including the value of the houses in question. The matter was taken up in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who has upheld the order. Feeling aggrieved, a second appeal was preferred before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, vide order dated 15 -12 -1989, had allowed the appeal and quashed the assessment order passed by the WTO on the ground that Rani Dayawati Devi was not a party to the proceedings in which it was held that the properties in question did not belong to Raja Y.D. Dubey and belonged to Rani Dayawati Devi.
(3.) WE have heard Sri Shambhoo Chopra, learned standing counsel for the revenue. No body has appeared on behalf of the respondent assessee.;