2002 PLP (Trib (PTD)

wealth the provisions of section 14(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 are similar to the provisions of section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance; 1979? "The irresistible conclusion is that provisions of section 14(2) of the Act are materially different from the provisions of section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979." Whether can section 14(2) of the Act and section 17 of the Act simultaneously give jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer? "The irresistible conclusion is that assumption of jurisdiction in different periods of times is subject‑matter of two different provisions of law,. During the relevant financial year proceedings for procuring the return are to be taken under section 14(2) and after end of the assessment year the jurisdiction can be assumed only under section

17. There is no concept of having concurrent/simultaneous jurisdictions under both the provisions of law viz. 14(2) and 17 of the Act." Can an‑ assessment proceeding be initiated by issuing notice under section 14(2) beyond the relevant assessment year? "In this view of the matter it is held that like subsection (2) of section 22 of the repealed Income‑tax Act, 1922 the assessment proceedings cannot be initiated beyond the assessment year by issuing a notice under section 14(2) of the Wealth Tar Act, 1963." Whether assuming jurisdiction under a provision other than the legal provision of law is a technical mistake which need not be looked into by the Appellate Court? "It is, therefore., clear that assuming jurisdiction under other than a legal provision is not a procedural mistake and being fatal to the whole proceedings cannot be ignored by the Appellate Authorities. " Can the assessee challenge the jurisdiction after filing the response to an invalid notice? Though this issue is not relevant in this case which is before us, however, for the sake of ready reference the relevant issue has been decided as under: "It is also the right of the appellant to be treated in accordance with law without any discrimination. For argument's sake if it is considered that on the basis of submission of his return on receipt of an invalid notice, the proceedings cannot be challenged then this would amount to discrimination against the person who submits return viz. a person who does not submit a return in response to an invalid notice. It is golden principle that no discrimination can be made under the law because all the assessees are to be treated equal. This has been so provided under Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and has been so implemented by the superior Courts as held in the following cases:‑‑‑ PLD 1987 Supreme Court of Pakistan 447 PLD 1958 Supreme Court of Pakistan 201 1999 PTD Karachi High Court 4037." Can an order passed without validly assuming jurisdiction stand the test of appeal? "As has been discussed above even consent of the assessee cannot give jurisdiction to an authority which Mot legally vested with the jurisdiction when there is no jurisdiction or no valid jurisdiction with an authority the orders passed in these circumstances are void and nullity in the eves of law. Waiver even where both the sides had agreed to waive a portion of a statutory provisions, cannot confer jurisdiction which according to statute is not there. In this connection reference can be made to. the cases reported as 1973 (Supl.) India SCR 365 and PLD 1958 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) 201. " Is an assessee entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of Wealth Tax Authority after he has made the return of the net wealth, notwithstanding the provision of subsection (10) of the Act? "The whole superstructure created by the Assessing Officer or subsequently by the learned CIT(A) falls because the basic notice under section 14(2) is illegal, invalid and void. We, therefore, annul the assessment order for the assessment year 1997‑98."

11. In this case a complaint has been lodged and to consequence of this cognizance the Assessing Officer has obtained Bank statements etc. In the light of the above discussion, we find that there is no such issuance of notice under section 17(1)(b) which is legally necessary. Hence we prefer not to dilate upon other issues raised by the A.R. It is therefore. clear that assuming jurisdiction without issuance of specific, statutory 'notice under section 17(1)(b), the whole assessment under section 16(5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963. is illegal, invalid and‑void. We, therefore, annul the assessment orders for all the years. If the Department wants to pursue its proceedings` for these years against the appellant, it is at liberty to do so but only after issuing proper, notices afresh as per law. Consequently all the appeals succeeded as indicated above. C.M.A./M.A.K./351/Tax(Trib.) Appeals succeeded.