Law: Wealth Tax Act, 1957

Section: 17,17(1)(b)

[Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957].........Section 17(1)(b)-Reassessment- Wealth Tax-"information", meaning of-Mistake apparent on the face of the record whether constitutes "information"-Held yes--Assessment on trust Assessment order on the basis that the whole of the trust fund belonged to the beneficiary-Succeeding Wealth Tax Officer finding that the beneficiary had a right over only 50 per cent of the corpus-Whether information and not change of opinion-Held yes The word "information" in Section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, is of the widest amplitude and comprehends a variety of factors. "Information" may come from external sources or even from the ma materials already on the record. It may consist of oversight or inadver tent mistake committed by the Wealth Tax Officer or he may discover an error apparent on the face of the record from further enquiry or research into facts or law. The assessee was a trust. The Wealth Tax Officer assessed the beneficiary under the trust deed on the total net wealth of the trust for the assessment year 1960-61. The succeeding Wealth Tax Officer examined the trust deed and found that the beneficiary had a right only up to, a maximum of 50 per cent. of the corpus. He, therefore, issued a notice under Section 17(1)(b) on the assessee. The Tribunal held that there was no new information and the notice under Section 17(1)(b)was invalid. On a reference: Held, on the facts, that there was nothing in the order of the preceding Wealth Tax Officer to show that he had applied his mind to the relevant clauses in the trust deed or that he was aware of the extent of the beneficiarys rights in the corpus. This was a case of an error apparent on the face of the record which would constitute "information". The assessment proceedings under Section 17(1)(b) were, therefore, valid. Cases referred to: Anandji Haridas & Co. v. Kushare (S.P.) [1968] 21 STC 326: AIR 1968 SC 565; CIT v. Bai Savitagouri [1975] 100 ITR 680 (Bom) ; CIT v. H. Holck Larsen [1972] 85 ITR 467 (Bam); CIT v. Kelukutty [1972] 85 ITR 102 (Ker) ; Kalyanii Mavji & Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) ; Kasturbhai Lalbhai v. Malhotra (R.K.), ITO [1971] 80 ITR 188 (Guj)…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492