RAJESH BALIA,J. - (1.) AT the instance of CWT, these three appeals filed against the common order passed by the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dt. 19th June, 2000, holding that the initiation of proceedings under S. 17 of the WT Act after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment years in question namely, 1981 82, 1982 83 and 1983 84 were barred by time and also that the proceedings were bad because notices have not been issued to all the members of the erstwhile HUF which has since been partitioned. As all the appeals raise common issue on same set of facts, we have heard the same together and propose to decide by this common order.
(2.) FOR the convenience we notice the facts relating to asst. year 1982 83. The facts of the case are that the HUF viz., M/s Sewalal Gafarlal was disrupted by a total partition on 16th Nov., 1982, and order under S. 20 of the WT Act, to that effect was recorded on 3rd Oct., 1986. The properties were distributed in the hands of the members of the erstwhile HUF. Out of seven members Shri Bhupatilal is being assessed to wealth tax at Kota. Smt. Durga Devi expired after 16th Nov., 1982, and she transferred her interest to her daughter through a will. The other five coparceners are being assessed to wealth tax at Banswara from 1984 85 in the status of their respective HUFs. Assessment of wealth tax for the asst. year 1982 83 of the then existing HUF was completed on 7th Feb., 1986, by valuing the net wealth of HUF as on valuation date relevant to asst. year 1982 83 at Rs. 14,92,000 as against net wealth of Rs. 4,75,495 returned by the HUF. In the case of assessment of (i) Shri Indra Kumar Sewalal, (ii) Durlabhlal Sewalal, (iii) Shri Govind Lal Sewalal, (iv) Shri Bharatlal Sewalal, and (v) Shri Surendra Kumar Sewalal during the assessment proceedings for 1989 90, long after partition of M/s Sewalal Gordhanlal (the erstwhile bigger HUF) had been recorded and its assessment for the asst. year 1982 83, the last year of its existence under the wealth tax, reference for valuing the properties in the hands of the aforesaid five assessees were made under S. 16A to DVO. By a strange reasoning that had the properties not partitioned and remained with bigger HUF, its combined valuation as on the valuation date relevant to asst. year 1989 90 would have been three times the value declared by the new assessees for asst. year 1989 90. Assessment of M/s Sewalal Govindlal for asst. year 1982 83 was sought to be reopened under S. 17 of the WT Act, 1957, which notices were issued on 9th Sept., 1992, under s. 16(2) of the Act. Ultimately reassessment was made by valuing the property on the basis of valuation report obtained for the asst. year 1989 90, in the cases of properties held by the erstwhile members of the family in their hands respectively. The CWT(A) by a common order for the asst. yrs. 1982 83 and 1983 84 in the name of HUF Sewalal Gafarlal, through Karta Shri Govindlal Yagnik allowed the same and set aside the assessment orders by holding that notices issued to one member of disrupted HUF only which now no more exists, by describing him as Karta without notice to other members of the family was nullity and assessment was liable to be quashed.
(3.) ON further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal noticed that notices in respect of initiation of proceedings under S. 17 were beyond the expiry of period of four year provided under S. 17(1)(b) and barred by time. According to the Tribunal in the aforesaid case, the AO initiated proceedings under S. 17 on the basis of valuation report obtained for the asst. year 1989 90, treating it to be an information furnishing basis for holding reasons to believe regarding escapement of assessment due to underassessment or assessment at too low a rate, obviously the cases fall within S. 17(1)(b). In that view of the matter the initiation of proceedings under S. 17 were found to be time barred in all the above three assessment years under appeal. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the Revenue has filed these three appeals suggesting following substantial questions of law said to be arising for consideration in these appeals : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that initiation of proceedings under S. 17 of the WT Act was barred by limitation, which finding was arrived at by ignoring the amended provisions of law. (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that after the partition of HUF, notices need to be served on all the erstwhile members of the HUF, when service of notice upon Karta of the erstwhile HUF was sufficient compliance to the requirements of law." ;