Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Laxmi Devi JaIn Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and Another.

Laxmi Devi Jain vs Wealth-tax Officer and Another.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 18, 1991
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/484435

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 580 of 1980
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Head Note: INCOME TAX WEALTH TAX Valuation--REFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICER--Notice by valuer--Assessment or reassessment nor pending on the date when reference to valuation officer under s. 16A(1) made--Notice issued by the valuer not valid. Wealth Tax Act 1957 s.16A - - WTO [1992]193ITR89(All) decided on Fe...

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Laxmi Devi Jain

Respondent

Wealth-tax Officer and Another.

Legal References

Reported In
[1992]193ITR154(All)

Excerpt

head note: income tax wealth tax valuation--reference to valuation officer--notice by valuer--assessment or reassessment nor pending on the date when reference to valuation officer under s. 16a(1) made--notice issued by the valuer not valid. wealth tax act 1957 s.16a - - wto [1992]193itr89(all) decided on february 6, 1991. following the said judgment, we allow this writ petition as well......were pending with respect to any of the four assessment years. it is submitted that she had filed returns for the first two assessment years and that assessment proceedings were completed period to june, 10, 1980, the date on which reference to the valuation officer was made under section 16a(1). it is further submitted that, with respect to other two assessment years, no returns were filed by the assessee and no proceedings for assessment or reassessment were also pending on the relevant date, viz., june 10, 1980. it is submitted that reference can be made under section 16a(1) only where a proceeding for assessment or reassessment is pending and not in a case where no such proceedings are pending. an identical contention has been upheld by us in civil miscellaneous writ petition no. 622 of 1980, v. k. jain v. wto : [1992]193itr89(all) decided on february 6, 1991. following the said judgment, we allow this writ petition as well. we may state that the basic facts stated above are not disputed in the counter-affidavit.the writ petition is allowed. no costs.it is made clear that this order does not preclude the wealth-tax officer from making such reference if any assessment or reassessment proceedings are pending with respect to any assessment year.

Full Judgment

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY C. J., - Validity of reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act is challenged in this case. The assessment years concerned herein are 1969-70, 1975-76, 1977-78 and 1978-79. The writ petition was occasioned by a notice issued by the Valuation Officer on June 16, 1980, stating the valuation of the property known as 'Agarwal Building' situated on plots Nos. 4, 5, 6 and Survey No. 419/1, The Mall, Kanpur, has been referred to him by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 16A(1) of the Act determining the fair market value of the assets as on March 31, 1969, to March 31, 1978, except March 31, 1973. The petitioners case is that, on the said date, no reassessment proceedings were pending with respect to any of the four assessment years. It is submitted that she had filed returns for the first two assessment years and that assessment proceedings were completed period to June, 10, 1980, the date on which reference to the Valuation Officer was made under section 16A(1). It is further submitted that, with respect to other two assessment years, no returns were filed by the assessee and no proceedings for assessment or reassessment were also pending on the relevant date, viz., June 10, 1980. It is submitted that reference can be made under section 16A(1) only where a proceeding for assessment or reassessment is pending and not in a case where no such proceedings are pending. An identical contention has been upheld by us in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 622 of 1980, V. K. Jain v. WTO : [1992]193ITR89(All) decided on February 6, 1991. Following the said judgment, we allow this writ petition as well. We may state that the basic facts stated above are not disputed in the counter-affidavit.

The writ petition is allowed. No costs.

It is made clear that this order does not preclude the Wealth-tax Officer from making such reference if any assessment or reassessment proceedings are pending with respect to any assessment year.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial