- (1.) AJOY NATH RAY, J.: This is a writ application challenging a notice dt. 20th May, 1992, for reopening the wealth-tax assessment of the petitioner for the asst. yr. 1983-84, which had been completed by an order dt. 22nd March, 1988.
(2.) THE notice itself is in a prototype printed form and does not, as the unfortunate custom is, disclose the reason for reopening. Such disclosure is, however, to come at least in the affidavit-in-opposition and it has so been put forward. It has been said that for the next assessment year, i.e., asst. yr. 1984-85, the valuation of real property of the writ petitioner has been made at the figure of Rs. 1.59 crores whereas the accepted valuation for the assessment year in question was of the order of Rs. 12 lakhs. This is said to be a ground (indeed it is the main ground) of reopening. The affidavit-in-opposition contains serious erroneous statements in that it is alleged that the return of wealth for the asst. yr. 1983-84 was filed by the assessee on 19th March, 1984. It is also incorrectly stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that no appeal has been preferred by the assessee from the order containing the valuation of Rs. 1.59 crores.
(3.) THE wealth-tax return had in fact been filed for the asst. yr. 1983-84 on 19th March, 1984, as has been stated in the affidavit-in-reply. The assessee has also been successful at least at the first appellate stage in respect of the large valuations of real property for the asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86. The order passed in favour of the assessee by the CIT(A) remands the matter for a reconsideration as to whether the vacant land in the property is appurtenant to the tenanted building already valued or it is not so appurtenant, and is separate, so as to call for a separate valuation. I have been told by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order of remand has itself again been challenged in second appeal before the Tribunal.;