Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THE WTO issued notices under Section 17 of the W.T. Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. THEse notices were served on the petitioner on 28th March, 1977. THE petitioner has challenged these notices, principally on the ground that they are barred by limitation.
(2.) FOR each of these years, the petitioner had filed returns under the W.T. Act. In due course, the WTO had passed assessment orders on these returns. Being of the opinion that the petitioner's house at 22, Katghar Road, Allahabad, was under-assessed, the WTO issued notices for these four assessment years as well as for the assessment year 1965-66 under Section 17 of the W.T. Act on 24th September, 1973. The petitioner contested these notices, but overruling the objections, the WTO, on 22nd January, 1975, passed five separate assessment orders in respect of each of the five years. In the original assessment proceedings the value of the house at 22, Katghar Road, was taken to be Rs. 16,640. In the reassessment proceedings, the value was taken at Rs. 4,66,020. The value of the mining lease rights was also upgraded and computed at Rs. 2,52,000. The assessee went up in appeal, but the appeals were dismissed by the AAC. The assessee thereupon filed appeals before the Tribunal, The Tribunal held that on 24th September, 1973, the WTO had recorded the following reason for taking action under Section 17(1) of the W.T. Act: "Issue notice under Section 17(1) of the Wealth-tax Act as the value of the property at 22, Katghar Road, has been under-assessed for not furnishing full particulars by the assessee."
(3.) THE Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment in respect of the property at 22, Katghar Road, Allahabad, as well as its value. THE notices under Section 17(1) were based upon a mere change of opinion, and on change of opinion reassessment proceedings cannot be held to be valid. THE Tribunal further held that since the WTO did not possess jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings, he could not make any reassessment in regard to the valuation of mining lease rights. On these findings, the assessments made under Section 17 were held liable to be quashed. Having recorded these findings, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the case on merits. After discussing the relevant material, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1967-68, the value of the land was liable to be estimated at Rs. 11 per square yard and for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 at Rs. 13 per square yard. To this the cost of the building and the godown as given in the departmental valuer's report will have to be added. On the question of mining lease rights, the Tribunal held that the assessee's interest in the mining lease was an "asset" within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the W.T. Act and was liable to wealth-tax. The WTO had valued the interest in mining lease at Rs. 2,52,000 on the basis of multiplying the average annual income by 12. The Tribunal considered the facts and directed the officer to adopt the multiplier of 8 for 1965-66 and 1966-67, multiplier of 10 for 1967-68 and 1968-69 and the multiplier of 11 for 1969-70. Ultimately, the Tribunal observed: "We have quashed the assessment orders made by the Wealth-tax Officer under Section 17(1) of the Wealth-tax Act and, therefore, findings given on quantum are of academic nature." ;