Income Tax Officer, Ward V (I)Aayakar Bhavannungambakkam High Roadchennai - 600 034 v. Sarojini Ramaswamy (Died) Rep. By Power Of Attorney Holder Rep. By Power Of Attorney Holder

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.01.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. MAHADEVANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Writ Appeal No.687 of 2012andM.P.No.1 of 2012 Income Tax Officer, Ward V (I)Aayakar BhavanNungambakkam High RoadChennai - 600 034 ..Appellant Versus 1. Sarojini Ramaswamy (died) rep. by power of attorney holder rep. by power of attorney holder V.Ramaswamy 2. V. Ramaswami 3. Geetha Toke 4. Bhamini Narayanaswamy 5. Uma Ramaswamy 6. Ashok Ramaswamy 7. Sanjay Ramaswamy (RR2 to 6 were brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased sole respondent as per order dated 19.03.2019 passed in CMP No.12336 of 2018 in Writ Appeal No.687 of 2012)..Respondents Appeal filed under Clause 15 of The Letters Patent againstthe Order dated 08.12.2011 passed by the learned single judge ofthis court in WP Nos. 13948 to 13954 of 2002. W.P.No.13948 of 2002: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226of the constitution of India for the issue of a writ ofcertiorari to call for the record in No.GIR 51-2565 for theAssessment year 1990-1991 dated 26.03.2002 of the respondent andto quash the same. W.P.No.13949 of 2002: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226of the constitution of India for the issue for the Assessment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ year 1991-1992 dated 26.03.2002 of the respondent and to quashthe same. W.P.No.13950 of 2002: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226of the constitution of India for the issue of a writ ofcertiorari to call for the record in No.GIR 51-2565 for theAssessment year 1992-1993 dated 26.03.2002 of the respondent andto quash the same. W.P.No.13951 of 2002: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226of the constitution of India for the issue of a writ ofcertiorari to call for the record in No.GIR 51-2565 for theAssessment year 1993-1994 dated 26.03.2002 of the respondent andto quash the same. W.P.No.13952 of 2002: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226of the constitution of India for the issue of a writ ofcertiorari to call for the record in No.GIR51-2565 for theAssessment year 1994-1995 dated 26.03.2002 of the respondent andto quash the same. W.P.No.13953 of 2002: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226of the constitution of India for the issue of a writ ofcertiorari to call for the record in No.GIR51-2565 for theAssessment year 1996-1997 dated 26.03.2002 of the respondent andto quash the same. W.P.No.13954 of 2002: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226of the constitution of India for the issue of a writ ofcertiorari to call for the record in No.GIR51-2565 for theAssessment year 1995-1996 dated 26.03.2002 of the respondent andto quash the same. For Respondents : Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar for Mr.N.Muthukumar JUDGMENT R. MAHADEVAN, J. Assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated08.12.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in WP Nos.13948 to13954 of 2002, the Revenue has come forward with this intra-court appeal. By the order impugned herein, the writ petitionsfiled by the assessee were allowed by setting aside the re-opening of the wealth tax assessment for the assessment years https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1990-91 to 1996-97. 2.Pending this appeal, the sole respondent, who was thepetitioner before the learned single Judge, died and therefore,her legal heirs were brought on record as the respondents 2 to 7to this appeal. 3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to,as per their original status i.e., appellant as Revenue and therespondent / writ petitioner as assessee. 4.The case of the assessee as projected in the writpetitions would run thus: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1990-91 to 1996-97. 2.Pending this appeal, the sole respondent, who was thepetitioner before the learned single Judge, died and therefore,her legal heirs were brought on record as the respondents 2 to 7to this appeal. 3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to,as per their original status i.e., appellant as Revenue and therespondent / writ petitioner as assessee. 4.The case of the assessee as projected in the writpetitions would run thus: The assessee had filed her returns of wealth for theassessment years 1990-91 to 1995-1996, on 30.08.1990,13.08.1991, 10.03.1993, 14.07.1995, 14.07.1995 and 14.07.1995respectively. After processing the assessment under section 16(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, notices under section 17 wereissued on 17.11.2000 stating that there was escaped assessmentand calling upon the assessee to file revised returns, on theground that the property at Mugappair owned by the assessee wassold in the year 1995 for a higher price of Rs.1,33,00,000/-. Inresponse to the same, the assessee filed her return for theassessment year 1996-97, disclosing the taxable income at Nil.Whereas, in respect of the other assessment years, she filed herreplies requesting to treat the returns originally filed ashaving filed in response to the said notices. After conduct ofenquiry and upon perusal of the documents placed, the assessingofficer proposed to revise the assessment with a view to adoptthe value of the said property by changing its nature fromagricultural land to commercial land, for the assessment years1990-91 to 1995-96. Having regard to the fact that the assesseesold the said property before the valuation date and the saleconsideration received by her was invested in the Park TownBenefit Fund in the name of her husband, the assessing officerestimated the total deposit held by her on the valuation dateviz., 31[st] March, 1996 at Rs.1,00,00,000/- and determined thesame assessable to tax, for the year 1996-97. The assessee filedher objections to the proposed revision of assessment. Withoutconsidering the same, the assessing officer confirmed theproposed revision by assessment orders dated 26.03.2002.Aggrieved over the said reassessment orders passed by theassessing officer, the assessee filed WP.Nos.13948 to 13954 of2002. 5.After hearing both sides, the learned single Judgeallowed the writ petitions. While doing so, referring to adecision of this court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Smt.Suguna Mahendran and others (1994) 209 ITR 684, it was held that'where the sale itself takes place long after the assessment year under consideration, the question of reopening theassessment for the purpose of redetermination of the value ofthe property based on the subsequent year's sale, as such, doesnot arise'. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex courtin Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd(2010) 320 ITR 561, it was further held that a reassessmentcannot be made based on the sale of the asset, which had takenplace long after the assessment and hence, there was no materialto establish that the assessee had not disclosed true and fullparticulars on the valuation of the property. Considering thelong pendency of the writ petitions i.e., right from 2002, thelearned single Judge also rejected the plea of the Revenuerelating to availability of an alternative remedy by way ofappeal. Challenging the same, the Revenue is before this courtwith the present writ appeal. 6. The learned senior standing counsel appearing for theappellant would contend that during the assessment proceedingsfor the year 1996-97, the assessee had admittedly sold theimmovable property at Mugappair for Rs.1,33,00,000/- on03.06.1995 and the said property was earlier developed to be acommercial property as on 01.04.1981. Thus, the assessee had notmade a full and true disclosure of wealth, which warrantedissuance of notice dated 17.11.2000 and consequentialreassessment orders under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, forthe assessment years in question. The learned senior standingcounsel would further contend that the returns filed by theassessee were only processed under Section 16 (1) and noassessment orders under Section 16 (3) were passed andtherefore, as per explanation (b) to section 17, the net wealthchargeable to tax had escaped assessment and accordingly, thereassessment proceedings were validly initiated. It is alsosubmitted that the assessee has an alternative remedy of appealas against the reassessment orders, but she straight awayapproached this court by filing the writ petitions. Thus,according to the learned senior standing counsel, withoutconsidering the said aspects in a proper perspective, thelearned single Judge allowed the writ petitions by the orderimpugned herein, which is liable to be set aside, as it isillegal and contrary to law. 7.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent /assessee would contend that the sale of the property on03.06.1995 for a higher price cannot be the basis for initiatingthe reassessment proceedings, especially when the value of theproperty was truly and correctly disclosed in the returns filedby the assessee. Further, there was no additional material madeavailable requiring the assessing officer to resort to theprovision under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act. Having foundso, the learned single Judge has set aside the reassessment orders passed by the assessing officer, which does not call forany interference at the hands of this court. In support of hiscontentions, the learned counsel relied on the followingdecisions of the supreme court as well as this court: (i) Commissioner of Income Tax and another v. ForamerFrance, (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC); (ii) Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. V.Vatsala, (1989) 177ITR 120 (Mad); and(iii) Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Smt. Suguna Mahendranand others, (1994) 209 ITR 685 (Mad). 8.This Court considered the rival submissions and perusedthe materials available on record. 9.A short point that arises for consideration herein is, asto whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by theassessing officer under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957,based on the sale consideration of the property at Mugappairowned by the assessee that took place after the assessment yearsunder consideration, is correct. (i) Commissioner of Income Tax and another v. ForamerFrance, (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC); (ii) Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. V.Vatsala, (1989) 177ITR 120 (Mad); and(iii) Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Smt. Suguna Mahendranand others, (1994) 209 ITR 685 (Mad). 8.This Court considered the rival submissions and perusedthe materials available on record. 9.A short point that arises for consideration herein is, asto whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by theassessing officer under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957,based on the sale consideration of the property at Mugappairowned by the assessee that took place after the assessment yearsunder consideration, is correct. 10.According to the assessee, she purchased the property atMugappair, measuring about 56 cents, from and out of theagricultural family income and all the family members were theco-owners of the same. In the returns filed for the assessmentyears 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, the assessee declared thevalue of the said agricultural property at Rs.2,47,230/- andclaimed exemption, since the agricultural land was not includedin the definition of 'assets' for the purpose of wealth tax.Subsequently, section 2 of the Wealth Tax Act was amended witheffect from 01.04.1993 by the Finance Act, 1992 pursuant towhich, the exclusion of agricultural land from the definition of'assets' was withdrawn. Consequently, in respect of theassessment years 1993-94 to 1995-96, the assessee included thevalue of the property as part of the asset and offered forassessment. Accordingly, the value of the property was declaredas Rs.21,60,000/- for the assessment year 1993-94,Rs.22,80,000/- for the assessment year 1994-95 andRs.24,00,000/- for the assessment year 1995-96. Since theproperty was sold before the valuation date and was not liableto be included in the net wealth, the assessee did not file herreturns for the assessment year 1996-97. However, in response tothe notice under section 17, she filed her return for the saidyear 1996-97. It was the specific claim of the assessee thatsince the property belonged to all the five members of thefamily, the sale consideration of the same was distributed toeach individual and accordingly, she was received one-fifthshare thereof, which was deposited in the name of her husband.Thus, there has not been any omission or failure on the part ofthe assessee to disclose fully and truly all materials facts, warranting the assessing officer to reopen the assessment undersection 17 of the Act. 11.On the other hand, the Revenue pleaded that the subjectproperty was not used for agricultural activities; it wasdeveloped to be a commercial property as on 01.04.1981; and thesame was sold for a higher price of Rs.1,33,00,000/- during theyear 1995. Therefore, the assessee failed to disclose the trueand correct value of the property assessable to tax.Accordingly, the assessing officer reopened the assessment andpassed the reassessment orders on 26.03.2002, for the assessmentyears in question, in accordance with law. 12.At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer tosection 17 of the Act, which reads as follows:- "17. Wealth escaping assessment warranting the assessing officer to reopen the assessment undersection 17 of the Act. 11.On the other hand, the Revenue pleaded that the subjectproperty was not used for agricultural activities; it wasdeveloped to be a commercial property as on 01.04.1981; and thesame was sold for a higher price of Rs.1,33,00,000/- during theyear 1995. Therefore, the assessee failed to disclose the trueand correct value of the property assessable to tax.Accordingly, the assessing officer reopened the assessment andpassed the reassessment orders on 26.03.2002, for the assessmentyears in question, in accordance with law. 12.At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer tosection 17 of the Act, which reads as follows:- "17. Wealth escaping assessment (1) If the Assessing Officer has reason tobelieve that the net wealth chargeable to tax inrespect of which any person is assessable under thisAct has escaped assessment, for any assessment year(whether by reason of under-assessment or assessmentat too low a rate or otherwise), he may, subject tothe other provisions of this section and section 17A,serve on such person a notice requiring him tofurnish within such period as may be specified in thenotice, a return in the prescribed form and verifiedin the prescribed manner setting forth the net wealthin respect of which such person is assessable as onthe valuation date mentioned in the notice, alongwith such other particulars as may be required by thenotice, and may proceed to assess or reassess suchnet wealth and also any other net wealth chargeableto tax in respect of which such person is assessable,which has escaped assessment and which comes to hisnotice subsequently in the course of proceedingsunder this section for the assessment year concerned(hereafter in this section referred to as therelevant assessment year) and the provisions of thisAct shall, so far as may be, apply as if the returnwere a return required to be furnished under section14; Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 16 or this section has beenmade for the relevant assessment year, no actionshall be taken under this section after the expiry offour years from the end of the relevant assessmentyear, unless any net wealth chargeable to tax hasescaped assessment for such assessment year, byreason of the failure on the part of the assessee tomake a return under section 14 or section 15 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (4) ofsection 16 or this section or to disclose fully andtruly all material facts necessary for his assessmentfor that assessment year; Provided further that the Assessing Officershall, before issuing any notice under this sub-section, record his reason for doing so; Provided also that the Assessing Officer mayassess or reassess such net wealth, other than thenet wealth which is the subject matter of any appeal,reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax andhas escaped assessment. Provided that, after the expiry of four yearsfrom the end of the relevant assessment year, nonotice shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioneror Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recordedby the Assessing Officer aforesaid, that it is a fitcase for the issue of such notice. Provided that the provisions of this sub-sectionshall not apply in any case where any such assessmentor reassessment relates to an assessment year inrespect of which an assessment or reassessment couldnot have been made at the time the order which wasthe subject-matter of the appeal, reference orrevision, as the case may be, was made by reason ofany provision limiting the time within which anyaction for assessment or reassessment may be taken." Provided that, after the expiry of four yearsfrom the end of the relevant assessment year, nonotice shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioneror Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recordedby the Assessing Officer aforesaid, that it is a fitcase for the issue of such notice. Provided that the provisions of this sub-sectionshall not apply in any case where any such assessmentor reassessment relates to an assessment year inrespect of which an assessment or reassessment couldnot have been made at the time the order which wasthe subject-matter of the appeal, reference orrevision, as the case may be, was made by reason ofany provision limiting the time within which anyaction for assessment or reassessment may be taken." The aforesaid provisions postulate that for invoking Section 17of the Act, it must be shown that (i) there are reasons tobelieve that certain income earned by the assessee has not beensubjected to assessment or (ii) the assessee should havedefaulted in filing of the return. In other words, theproceedings for reassessment should be based on the failure ofthe assessee to have made full and true disclosure of income,wilfully. Thus, based on certain omissions or misrepresentationor suppression of certain material particulars at the time offiling the return of wealth, by the assessee, the AssessmentOfficer can initiate proceedings under Section 17 of The Act.Such a power conferred on the Assessing Officer is akin to thepower conferred upon the Assessing Officer under Section 147 ofThe Income Tax Act, 1961. In this case, the assessing officerhad invoked the provisions of Section 17 of the Act and passedthe reassessment orders dated 26.03.2002 against the assessee,based on the sale consideration of the subject propertysubsequent to the assessment years under consideration andhence, it must be examined as to whether the Assessing Officeris justified in reopening the returns filed by the assesseeunder section 17 of the Act. 13.It is an admitted fact that the assessee had owned theproperty at Mugappair measuring 56 cents, which was sold on03.06.1995 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,33,00,000/-; and shefiled her returns disclosing wealth for the assessment yearsfrom 1990-91 to 1995-96. There is no allegation that there hasbeen any omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all thematerials facts by the assessee for the assessment in respect ofthe years under consideration. While so, the assessing officerissued the notices dated 17.11.2000 wherein, it was merelystated that there was reason to believe that the net wealthchargeable to tax for the assessment years in question hasescaped assessment within the meaning of section 17 of theWealth Tax Act. Pursuant to the same, the assessee filed herreturn for the assessment year 1996-97 as well. Thereafter, theassessing officer completed the reassessment proceedings andpassed orders dated 26.03.2002, after determining the value ofthe property as on valuation date, on the premise that theassessee estimated its value at Rs.3,50,000/- per ground as on01.04.1981, whereas the property was sold for a consideration ofRs.1,33,00,000/- during the year 1995; and thus, the assesseedid not adopt the fair market value of the property fordetermining the IT purposes. 14.When the said reassessment orders were put to challengein the writ proceedings, the learned single judge, placingreliance on the decision of this court in the Commissioner ofWealth Tax v. Smt. Suguna Mahadevan and others (supra), heldthat the question of reopening the assessment for the purpose ofredetermination of the value of the property based on thesubsequent year's sale, as such, does not arise. In that case,in similar situation, this court pointed out that it is notpermissible to the assessing officer to rely upon an event ofsale, which took place subsequent to the assessment year inquestion, to determine the value of the property as on thevaluation date, relating to the assessment year in question; andsuch method is not known in the field of income capitalisationmethod. The relevant passage of the said decision is usefullyextracted below: "3. We are of the view that it is not at allpermissible to the Assessing Officer or for thatmatter the Tribunal to rely upon an event of salewhich takes place subsequent to the assessment year inquestion to determine the value of the property as inthe relevant assessment year. Such a method is notknown in the field of income capitalisation method.On the contrary, the value is worked out from theevent of sale that takes place till the assessmentyear if that assessment year happens to be subsequentto the year of sale. In addition to this the Tribunalcannot be held to have committed an error in law in relying upon Circular No. 326 (see (1982) 134 ITR(St.) 167) dated 6th Feb., 1982 as that circular isissued for the purpose of determining the value of thelands by following the income capitalisation method.The circular lays down the guidelines for the purposeof determining the valuation so that different methodsare not followed by the Department for the purpose ofdetermining the value of the property. In order toensure uniformity in the manner and mode ofdetermining the value of the property, the wealth-taxcircular in question has been issued under s.10 of theWT Act. In this regard, we may usefully refer to thedecision of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese vs. ITO(1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358; (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), inwhich it has been held as follows (at page 612)"2. But the construction which iscommending itself to us does not vest merely onthe principle of contemporanea expositio. Thetwo circulars of the CBDT to which we have justreferred are legally binding on the revenue andthis binding character attaches to the twocirculars even if they be found not inaccordance with the correct interpretation ofsub-s. (2) and they depart or deviate from suchconstruction. It is now well-settled as aresult of two decisions of this Court, one inNavnit Lal C. Javeri vs. K.K. Sen, AAC (1965) 56ITR 198 and the other in Ellerman Lines Ltd. vs.CIT 1972 ctr (SC) 11; (1971) 82 ITR 913 (SC)that circulars issued by the CBDT under s.119 ofthe Act are binding on all officers and personsemployed in the execution of the Act even ifthey deviate from the provisions of the Act. 4. However, it is contended that as the circularprescribed only the guidelines, the actual value ofthe property as in the asst. yr. 1982-83 ought to havebeen determined. With reference to this contention itis sufficient for us to observe that the question isnot framed in that fashion. Therefore, it need not beconsidered. For the reasons stated we are of the viewthat no referable question of law as raised by thepetitioner arises in these cases. Accordingly, thetax case petitions are rejected." 15.In this context, a decision of this Court inCommissioner of Wealth Tax v. V.Vatsala reported in (1989) 177ITR 120 cited on the side of the assessee is also worthmentioning. In that case, the assessee submitted her return ofwealth for the assessment year 1973-74 on 22.06.1973 declaring 4. However, it is contended that as the circularprescribed only the guidelines, the actual value ofthe property as in the asst. yr. 1982-83 ought to havebeen determined. With reference to this contention itis sufficient for us to observe that the question isnot framed in that fashion. Therefore, it need not beconsidered. For the reasons stated we are of the viewthat no referable question of law as raised by thepetitioner arises in these cases. Accordingly, thetax case petitions are rejected." 15.In this context, a decision of this Court inCommissioner of Wealth Tax v. V.Vatsala reported in (1989) 177ITR 120 cited on the side of the assessee is also worthmentioning. In that case, the assessee submitted her return ofwealth for the assessment year 1973-74 on 22.06.1973 declaring the value of her property at Rs.38,000/-, which according to theassessee was the value as exist in the year 1968. The assesseealso disclosed that she purchased the property on 10.06.1971.Subsequent to the filing of the return, the assessee enteredinto an agreement for sale on 06.10.1973 for Rs.75,000/-. Theassessee filed a revised return in which she had disclosed someof the jewelleries, which she omitted to include. However,insofar as the property purchased by her on 10.06.1971, she didnot disclose the sale agreement entered into in October, 1973.The Wealth Tax Officer was of the view that the value of theproperty shown in the return as Rs.38,000/- cannot be acceptedas the assessee had sold it for Rs.70,000/- during January 1974.Therefore, the Wealth Tax Officer initiated penalty proceedingsfor the balance amount allegedly not declared by the assessee tothe tune of Rs.30,000/-. In such circumstances, the DivisionBench of this Court held as follows:- "We have carefully considered the rivalsubmissions. We are of the view that it isunnecessary, on the facts and circumstances of thiscase, to consider and decide the question whetherinaccuracy in the value declared would amount toconcealment of particulars or furnishing ofinaccurate particulars of an asset. It is seen thatthe property in question was a single storeyed housein an area of 4,574 sq.ft. and had been purchased bythe assessee from the Bharathi Nagar Co-operativeHouse Construction Society for a sum of Rs.22,365/-under a document dated 10th June 1971. The propertywas valued in 1968 at Rs.38,000 and that reallyformed the basis of the value as returned by theassessee for the assessment year in question as wellas for the prior years and that value had beenaccepted. It is this value which was adopted by theassessee when she filed a return of wealth for theassessment year in question on 22nd June, 1973. Atthat time, there was absolutely no negotiation forthe sale of her property or any offer for the sameand as matters stood on the date on which she filedthe return, it cannot be said that the assessee hadfurnished inaccurate particulars regarding the valueof the property. The adoption of the value ofRs.40,000/- with reference to this item of propertyas in the previous years cannot but be bona fide whenthe return of wealth was filed. It was later inOctober, 1973, that she entered into an agreement forthe sale of the property for Rs.75,000/-, though theactual sale price was only Rs.70,000/-, afterdeducting stamp and other related expenses. It istrue that the assessee filed a revised return on 24thDec. 1973 adding the value of some jewellery not included in the earlier return and retaining thevalue of immovable properties as before. Though thiswas done after the entering into the agreement forthe sale of the property by the assessee in October,1973, we cannot project backwards the value reflectedin the agreement entered into in October 1973 to thevaluation date 31st March, 1973. In other words, thevalue reflected in the agreement entered into inOctober, 1973, cannot be considered to be the valueas on 31st March, 1973. So looked at, the assesseecannot be stated to have concealed any particularseven with reference to the value of the property.There is, therefore, no question of the assesseehaving concealed particulars of any asset orfurnished inaccurate particulars of any assetattracting the levy of penalty under S.18 (1) (c) ofthe Act. We hold that the Tribunal was right in theview it took that no case is made out for the levy ofpenalty. We, therefore, answer the questionsreferred in the affirmative and against the revenue.The assessee will be entitled to the costs of thisreference. Counsel's fee Rs.500." 16.In the light of the aforesaid legal proposition, thiscourt is of the view that the reopening the assessment by theassessing officer, based on the event of sale, which had takenplace subsequently, to redetermine the value of the property forthe assessment years in question, is not legally sustainable.Accordingly, the learned single judge rightly held so in thewrit petitions filed by the assessee challenging thereassessment proceedings. 17.That apart, in the present case, admittedly, theassessee had filed her returns of wealth along with supportivedocuments; and there was no allegation that she had withheld thematerial facts or that the facts placed before the Officer arenot truly and fully disclosed for assessment. Further, in thenotice issued under Section 17, there was no mention about theadditional material or document unearthed by the AssessingOfficer, which the assessee failed to disclose; and the subsection, under which assessment was reopened. Thus, one of thebasic requirements to initiate the reassessment proceedingsunder Section 17 of the Act, has not been satisfied by theAssessing Officer. In such circumstances, we do not find anyjustification on the part of the assessing officer to reopen theassessment and pass the reassessment orders dated 26.03.2002. 18.In Commissioner of Income-Tax and another v. ForamerFrance, [264 ITR 566] arising under Income Tax Act relating toSections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, the supreme court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pointed out that 'when there was no failure on the part of theassessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts forassessment, the assessment could not be reopened on the basis ofchange of opinion'. Placing reliance on the same, the learnedsingle Judge has concluded that on a mere change of opinion onthe part of assessing officer, there cannot be reopening of theassessment. We are in full agreement with such a conclusionreached by the learned single Judge. 19.As regards the plea of alternative remedy, this court isof the opinion that when the condition precedent for theinvocation of reassessment proceedings does not exist, theassessee is entitled to approach this court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India and hence, the question of invokingthe alternative remedy available to the assessee, does notarise. The learned single Judge has also rightly rejected thesaid plea of the Revenue, besides considering the fact of longpendency of the writ petitions. 20.Thus, we do not find any reason much less valid reasonto interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.Accordingly, we dismiss the writ appeal filed by therevenue. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) //True Copy// rsh 20.Thus, we do not find any reason much less valid reasonto interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.Accordingly, we dismiss the writ appeal filed by therevenue. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) //True Copy// rsh Sub Assistant Registrar To Income Tax Officer, Ward V (I)Aayakar BhavanNungambakkam High RoadChennai - 600 034 +1cc to Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate, S.R.No.3519 +1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.4419 MT(CO)RGA(09/02/2022) WA No. 687 of 2012