Find a Lawyer

W.T.AS. NOS. 1137/LB AND 1138/LB OF 2000, DECIDED ON 24TH NOVEMBER, 2001. versus W.T.AS. NOS. 1137/LB AND 1138/LB OF 2000, DECIDED ON 24TH NOVEMBER, 2001.

Section 17 (1) (a) and (b) Examining the Escape from Wealth Under the wrong provision of the law. That is, instead of section 17 (1) (b) of the Wealth Tax Act 1963, the first appellate authority under section 17 (1) (a) placed the reason for the matter because the officer examining 299 1998 was the inspecting additional commissioner. Sent a letter seeking permission to reopen the case while there was a show cause notice under section 17 (1) (a) of the Wealth Tax Act 1963. The assessment was worked out on 2 10 1998 and the SC was not provided with sufficient opportunity to be heard, saying the concept of jurisdiction was defective because the notice was issued under a false provision of the law and Any action taken in pursuance of this was illegal and, as a result of the notice under Section 17 (1) (a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, the law officer holding the law was observed by law. I cannot be sustainable because the reason is that the issue o f assimilation was covered by section 17 (1) (b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, if the assessment Fysr had no definite information about the escape from wealth tax if he should notice issued under section 17 (1) (b). All information related to it is required to be provided by the Wealth Tax Act, 1963. The validity seeking officer sought permission to apply for Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act 1963, despite the fact that the first appellate authority expressed its surprise and displeasure. Regarding the procedure adopted by the Assessing Officer, it has been observed that - this condition is not sustainable in law as the showcase notice issued under section 17 (1) (a) is required to reopen the case before service. registration advocate from Minchanabad lawyer