IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 WTA.No. 175 of 2009() --------------------- WTA.48/C/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: ----------------------------- P.K.KURIAN, PROP. JOHNEY BROTHERS, BASIN ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX ERNAKULAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, ERNAKULAM. THIS WEALTH TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH WTA NO.176/2009 & CONN. CASES ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... W.T. Appeal Nos.175,176,177 & 172 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The connected appeals are filed by the assessee questioning revised wealth tax assessments on the ground that such assessments are time barred. Admittedly original wealth tax assessments completed were reopened for the reason that chargeable wealth has escaped assessment. All the assessments completed were within 10 years and since the net wealth escaped assessment in the original assessments was above Rs.10 lakhs, the Tribunal sustained the assesments in terms of Section 17(1)A(iii) of the Wealth Tax Act. 2. After hearing counsel appearing for the appellant and on going through the orders, we find that reopening is made only because assessee declared higher value for the landed properties in the income tax assessment for a later year when the properties were sold. In fact, the base year market value declared as on 1.4.1981 was much higher than the value declared in the wealth tax returns based on which 2 assessments were completed. In fact, the declaration of higher market value as on 1.4.1981 was accepted by the department in the computation of long term capital gains in the income tax assessments. We are of the view that assessee is a beneficiary in the deal in as much as the option to the Income Tax Officer was either to reject assessee's claim in the income tax assessment and demand higher tax or to accept the same in the wealth tax assessment. The latter course adopted by the officer in our view is more beneficial to the assessee and therefore, in assessee's own interest we should reject the contention. In any case since the reason for reopening assessment is assessee's own admission of higher value, reopening is justified and since net wealth is above Rs.10 lakhs, the Tribunal rightly held that assessments are not time barred. Consequently we dismiss the appeals. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms