N.V. Balasubramanian, J.@mdashIn pursuance of the directions of this court, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following common question of law for our consideration :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the assessments u/s 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, as being made without jurisdiction?"
2. The assessment years involved are 1985-86 and 1986-87.
3. The assessee is an individual. She got an undivided interest in a property known as "Ashok Bhavan". The Wealth-tax Officer originally completed the assessment for both the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 u/s 16(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. However, the assessee filed revised returns for both the assessment years and on the basis of the revised returns, the Wealth-tax Officer completed the assessments u/s 16(2) of the Wealth-tax Act. Subsequently, the officer reopened the assessments u/s 17 of the Wealth-tax Act and also completed the reassessment. The assessee aggrieved by the orders of reassessment, approached the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) upheld the jurisdiction of the Wealth-tax Officer to reopen the assessments and dismissed the appeals preferred by the assessee. The assessee carried the matter in further appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, following its own order rendered in the case of another co-owner by name T.M. Ramaswamy, has recorded a finding of fact that the Assessing Officer had necessary information of the sale of the property, which fetched a higher price before framing the assessment based on the revised return and the Wealth-tax Officer has no other new information for reopening the assessment u/s 17 of the Wealth-tax Act. The Tribunal, therefore, held that in the absence of any new information, the Wealth-tax Officer has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue filed a reference application before the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the questions of law set out earlier. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that no question of law arose out of the order. However, on the basis of the directions of this court, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the questions of law set out earlier.
5. We heard Mr. T. Ravi Kumar, learned junior standing counsel for the Revenue. The assessee has been served, but there is no representation on behalf of the assessee. We have also carefully perused the records. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu V, Chennai is not able to inform the court whether the Department has accepted the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rendered in the case of another co-owner T.M. Ramaswamy in spite of the opportunity given. Be that as it may, it is seen from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that the Appellate Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the Wealth-tax Officer had all the necessary information regarding the factum of sale, which fetched a higher price, while completing the assessment u/s 16(2) of the Wealth-tax Act and there was no other information at all before him to clothe him with the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment u/s 17 of the Wealth-tax Act. The Appellate Tribunal also found that it is not a case of falling u/s 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, but a case falling u/s 17(1)(b) of the Act and in the absence of any information, we hold that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Wealth-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment u/s 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act. Counsel for the Revenue has not advanced any other argument. We find the finding of Appellate Tribunal is based on fact arrived at on analysis of materials on record and we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
6. Accordingly, the common question of law referred to us is required to be and is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. However, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
