- (1.) THE petitioner who is the karta of the Hindu undivided family (specified) styled as Trilok Chandra Seth has filed this writ petition. He owns business in the name and style of M/s. Lala Kashi Nath Seth Jewellers, Bara Bazar, Bareilly. THE reliefs claimed through this writ petition are (1) for quashing of the notice dated September 8, 1986, issued under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, and (2) for a writ of mandamus directing the Wealth-tax Officer, respondent No. 2, not to take any action in pursuance of the aforesaid notice.
(2.) FOR the assessment year in question, the Wealth-tax Officer assessed the firm, M/s. Kashi Nath Jewellers. The petitioner was aggrieved by the assessments made by the Wealth-tax Officer. He filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which was partly allowed. Thereafter, notice under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act dated March 10/14, 1986, for the assessment years 1982-83and 1983-84 was served on the petitioner on March 27, 1986. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this court challenging the validity of the said notice which was admitted on May 15, 1986, and further proceedings in consequence of the aforesaid notice were stayed. Subsequently, the impugned notice under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act was issued by the Wealth-tax Officer which was served on the petitioner on September 21, 1986. Challenging the validity of the said notice, the present writ petition has been filed. The argument of the petitioner's counsel was that the Wealth-tax Officer was not justified in issuing the said notice under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act when the matter under Section 25(2) of the said Act was challenged as against the initiation of the proceedings by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Kanpur, and was admitted and stay was granted by this court. It was further argued that the Wealth-tax Officer had no power to issue notice under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the proceedings under Section 17 are distinct and separate from those of Section 25(2). One is for reassessment whereas the other is for rectification. Merely because proceedings under, Section 25(2) were taken by issuing notice, the Wealth-tax Officer was not debarred from initiating proceedings under Section 17 as it appears on the facts and circumstances of the case. We are also not satisfied with the argument that the Wealth-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 17. We are of the opinion that he had ample jurisdiction. We, therefore, at this stage cannot issue the writ of mandamus prayed for.
(3.) THE writ petition is dismissed summarily.;