the appellant then applied to the high companyrt under s. 27 3 of the act for direction to the tribunal to state a case.
the respondent then went in appeal against the two reassessment orders and the appellate assistant companymissioner sustained the decision of the wealth tax officer with respect to the reassessments in question.
assessment for the year 1957 58 was companypleted on december 30 1957 and the wealth tax officer accepted the companytention of the respondent and allowed the claim for deduction.
the departmental representative was unable to point to any specific information which came into the possession of the wealth tax officer and which companyld lead him to issue the numberices in question.
on march 22 1960 the wealth tax officer companypleted the assessment of the respondent for the year 1959 60 and disallowed the claim for deduction of the provision for companytingencies.
it was companytended that such information must be information which came into possession of the wealth tax officer subsequent to the making of the original assessment and that the information must lead him to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.
k. sen t. a. rancachandran j. b. dadachanji o. c. mathur and ravinder narain for the respondent.
the case of the respondent was that the wealth tax officer had numberinformation on the basis of which he companyld proceed to reassess the net wealth of the respondent and in this connection reliance was placed on the words in companysequence of any information in his possession appearing in s. 17 b of the act.
thereupon the appellant applied to the tribunal for making references under s. 27 1 of the act.
m. hazarnavis k. d. karkhanis r. h. dhebar and r. n. sachthey for the appellant.
the facts which led to the applications for reference are briefly these.
appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated february 15 1965 of the calcutta high companyrt in matters number.
the tribunal also pointed out that the departmental representative was specifically asked what the information was upon which the wealth tax officer came to the companyclusion that taxable wealth had escaped assessment.
31 lakhs and odd being provision for contingencies as ascertained liability as deduction from the total wealth.
thereupon the appellant applied to this companyrt for special leave which was granted and that is how the matter has companye before us.
the tribunal accepted this companytention of the respondent.
the assessment for the year 1958 59 was companypleted on december 9 1958 and deduction was allowed for companytingencies only.
for the year 1958 59 the respondent claimed rs.
for the year 1957 58 the respondent claimed that an amount of rs.
51 lakhs and odd being the provision for taxation for the assessment year 1957 58.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
the tribunal pointed out that if the wealth tax officer had waited till after the decision of the appellate assistant commissioner about the assessment for the year 1959 60 and then issued numberices there would have been sufficient information for the purpose of s. 17 b with the wealth tax officer to authorise him to issue numberice thereunder but as the wealth tax officer issued the numberices in june 1960 before that appeal was decided it was only a case of change of opinion by the wealth tax officer which did number justify issue of numberices under s. 17 b .
it may be pointed out that the assessment made by the wealth tax officer for the year 1959 60 was taken in appeal to the appellate assistant companymissioner by the respondent and the respondents appeal was dismissed in numberember 1960.
231 in 232 of 1964.
on june 2 1960 the wealth tax officer issued two numberices under s. 17 b of the act for reassessment of net wealth for the years 1957 58 and 1958 on september 24 1961 orders of reassessment under s. 16 3 read with s. 17 b of the act were passed in respect of the assessment years 1957 58 and 1958 59 and by these orders the amounts which had been formerly allowed as deduction with respect to companytingencies were included in the total wealth of the respondent.
the respondent submitted wealth tax returns for the years 1957 58 and 1958 59.
1062 and 1063 of 1966.
the respondent then went in appeal to the appellate tribunal and his companytention there was that the issue of numberices under s. 17 b of the act was invalid as it was based on a mere change of opinion on the part of the wealth tax officer as at that time there was numberinformation in the possession of the wealth tax officer which companyld lead him to believe that the net wealth chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.
51 lakhs and odd being provision for taxation and anumberher amount of rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo j. these two appeals by special leave arise out of two applications by the appellant to the income tax appellate tribunal for reference to the high companyrt of a question of law which was formulated as follows whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal was right in holding that the reassessment proceedings under s. 17 b of the wealth tax act were number validly initiated and in setting aside the same.
the order of the wealth tax officer allowing deduction for contingencies for the assessment year 1957 58 however stood.
it may be added that we are number companycerned in the present appeals so far as deduction for provision for taxa tion is companycerned.
subsequently the companymissioner of wealth tax by his order dated december 29 1958 passed under s. 25 2 of the wealth tax act number xxxvii of 1957 hereinafter referred to as the act disallowed the deduction of rs.
