This appeal is by assessee and only grievance of assessee is against invoking of action under section 17(1) (a ) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). facts are that original assessment was completed on 25- 3-1976 at net wealth of Rs. 65,000. This included land and building owned by assessee and used by assessee for his business under name and style of Kamal & Co. Coach Works and value of same was shown at Rs. 58,937. During course of assessment proceedings, assessee agreed with WTO that value of said property be assessed at Rs. 65,000 only and, accordingly, assessment was completed. assessment was reopened by applying provisions of section 17(1) ( ) by WTO on ground that same property was valued at Rs. 1,15,000 by departmental valuer under section 16A (5) of Act for assessment year 196970 and, therefore, value of same property for subsequent year could not have been less. WTO, therefore, came to conclusion that assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts in regard to fair market value of above property and, thus, wealth chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of under- assessment. departmental record of assessee had been examined and reasons for reopening have been brought out from out of departmental record. 2. contention of assessee was that for year under review there was no reference made to Valuation Officer. WTO did not exercise option of making reference to Valuation Officer for year under review. reference to Valuation Officer was made for assessment year 1969- 70, which was pending at time when assessment for present year in appeal was concluded. report of Valuation Officer was obtained on 20-7- 1977 for valuation date 31-3-1969. According to assessee, dates are important, i. e., valuation report for earlier year was obtained almost one year and four months aft conclusion of assessment for present assessment year. assessee had raised objection before AAC that there has been full and true disclosure by assessee of property and its value. WTO had agreed at time of original assessment to assess property at Rs. 65,000 only and he did not choose to refer matter to Valuation Officer. It was submitted in appeal before AAC that valuation report for assessment year 969-70 was obtained much after assessment had been concluded for assessment year in question. It could under no circumstances be basis for formation of belief that wealth that has been declared by assessee is under-assessed. learned AAC, however, rejected plea of assessee following his earlier order for 1969-70 allowed relief of Rs. 25,000 for year under review. 3. Before us, Mr. Mathur, learned counsel raised preliminary objection about relying on Valuation Officer's report for earlier year for formation of belief that wealth has escaped assessment was bad as wealth was disclosed and its value was also disclosed and WTO had already made addition to value disclosed by assessee by about Rs. 7,000. Further, he did not choose to refer matter to Valuation Officer. According to Mr. Mathur, once he has chosen not to refer matter to Valuation Officer and makes assessment by making some addition, then report of Valuation Officer for earlier year cannot be basis for reopening as that report cannot be binding on WTO. Mr. Mathur submitted even Valuation Officer's report is very much after date of completion of assessment order and valuation report is for valuation date 31-3-1969 only. Since this is not report relevant to assessment year in question, it cannot be applied as it is. WTO could not have applied this valuation report as this was obtained very much later to assessment. He relied on Brig. B. Lall v. WTO [1981] 127 ITR 308 (Raj.) for purpose that Valuation Officer's report cannot be information for formation of belief about property being under assessed. 4. learned departmental representative relied on Trustees and Executors of late Shri Shamji Kheta v. TO [1984] 148 ITR 219 (Bom.) and Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers v. WTO [1984] 145 ITR 485 (SC) for proposition n d definition of term 'full and true' disclosure. According to learned departmental representative, when value of property was determined at Rs. 1 lakh and above, how could same property for subsequent year be lower than Rs. 1 lakh. Therefore, assessee did not make full and true disclosure of value. He, therefore, supported order of AAC and disclosure of value. He, therefore, supported order of AAC and pleaded that there was no merit in assessee's appeal and same needs to be dismissed. 5. We have heard submissions of parties. question that needs b e considered by us is whether Valuation Officer's report relevant to assessment year 1969-70 though obtained subsequent to completion of assessment for assessment year 1970-71 though obtained subsequent to completion of assessment for assessment year 1970-71 could be said to b e information for purpose of formation of belief that wealth is underassessed or not. identical issue was considered by Rajasthan High Court in case of Brig. B. Lall (supra). In this case, their Lordships have observe that provisions of section 17 applied to case where assessments have been completed on basis of return of assessee which was based on either approved valuer's report or otherwise. They examined issue of reference to Valuation Officer under section 16A (5). They have examined purpose of bringing in section 16A (5) by Legislatures and also examined functions of Valuation Officer. Their Lordships have examined conditions for making reference to Valuation Officer, which is reproduced below: "The condition precedent or pre-requisite conditions for providing jurisdiction to WTO for making reference to Valuation Officer, as laid down in section 16A are as under: 1. that WTO wants to have report of Valuation Officer on valuation of any asset for purpose of making assessment; 2. that this is required to be done because value of asset as returned in accordance with assessment made by registered valuer is, in opinion of WTO, less than its fair market value; or 3. (a) WTO is of opinion that fair market value of asset exceeds value of asset as returned by assessee by more than such percentage of value of asset or more than such amount as may be prescribed, or (b) that having regard to nature of other relevant circumstances, it is necessary so to do." (p. 323) Thereafter, their Lordships observed as under: "We are of opinion that foundation or bedrock of jurisdictional facts necessary for giving jurisdiction under section 16A is that WTO must be seized of return filed by assessee containing valuation of his assets for which he is to apply his mind and adjudicate valuation for completing assessment. situation contemplated in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of section 16A can be visualised only in case of pending assessment and not completed assessment. Once assessment is completed and before reassessment commences WTO becomes functus officio for purposes of section 16A , as he is not in process of completing any assessment, for purpose of which he wants to check up from Valuation Officer, correctness of valuation of assets disclosed by assessee in return and which, according to him, are undervalued, looking to fair market value or as per standards laid down in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1). We have mentioned above to emphasise that in spite of amendment introduced by section 16A , revenue cannot use it for enquiry to consider whether to reopen or not to reopen completed assessment on ground of alleged under valuation of wealth. It may be that when we resort to strict and stringent interpretation of section 16A , it may lead to consequences where revenue may allege that there would be avoidance of some taxes. However, this is primarily for consideration of Legislature and not of court. Justice Shah in CIT v. A. Raman & Co. [1968] 67 ITR (SC) said (p. 17): 'Avoidance of tax liability by so arranging commercial affairs that charge of tax is distributed, is not prohibited. taxpayer may resort to device to divert income before it accrues or arises to him. Effectiveness of device depends not upon consideration of morality, but on operation of Income- tax Act. Legislative injunction in taxing statutes may not, except on peril of penalty, be violated, but it may lawfully be circumvented.' In substance, section 16A curtails jurisdiction of WTO under section 1 7 to ascertain price of any asset. Once WTO choose to make reference to Valuation Officer, valuation of property made by Valuation Officer is to be accepted by WTO. combined reading of sub- section (1) and sub-section (6) of section 16A would show that no discretion has been given to WTO to reject or vary report of Valuation Officer. Contrary to it, if WTO decides not to make reference to Valuation Officer, he will have no option but to accept position that returned value of asset is not less than its fair market value. limited enhancement is only permissible under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section. Of course, WTO can recall his order of reference but this can be done before Valuation Officer starts functioning and then he has to follow either clause (b) or clause (c). ... We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that apart from other reasons given for rejecting this contention, scheme of section 16A in its entirety providing for appeals and finality is binding on WTO and provisions for giving of notice to assessee before making valuation and further provisions of giving powers of CPC Valuation Officer for entry, inspection and calling of record, etc., all lead to inevitable and inescapable conclusion that such report can neither be termed nor be used as administrative order or report. We are, therefore, firmly of opinion that section 16A has got no relevancy and cannot be applied after assessment is complete and before reassessment has commenced, that is, for purposes of consideration of question whether completed assessment can be reopened or not or in other words, to decide and consider question whether valuation accepted by WTO was case of wealth escaping assessment on account of under valuation. Any reference made under section 16A cannot lead to reopening of closed assessment under section 17(1) as report submitted by Valuation Officer would be in invalid reference and must be treated as nullity in eye of law, non est and void ab initio. Consequently, all eight notices in these eight writ applications being based on Valuation Officer's report obtained under section 16A cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed on this ground alone. Exhibit R-1 order for issuing notices under section 17 to petitioners in all above eight cases is based on valuation report received under section all above eight cases is based on valuation report received under section 1 6 of Act wholly ad solely. This report is non est as being without jurisdiction, illegal, null and void and, therefore, entire fabric for reopening these proceedings falls flat and impugned notices deserve to be quashed. notices are based on absence of existence of any legal foundation which could have given rise to valid belief or reason to believe, as contemplated by section 17(1) (a) or could have provided information as contemplated by section 17(1) (b ) of Act. It can neither constitute information within meaning of section 17(1) (b ) of Act nor can it become reason for belief within meaning of section 17(1) (a) of Act. These eight writ applications, therefore, deserve to be accepted on this short but surest ground as notices, in view of our finding above discussed, are without any legal and valid foundation both under section 17(1) (a) and (b ) of Act." (pp. 323-329) On behalf of revenue, it was also argued that even if it is assumed that Valuation Officer's report under section 16A cannot be called for purpose of consideration of reopening only, even then once it has come on record of WTO, he cannot be prevented from using it as administrative or executive document and making it reason for belief. It was negatived by their Lordships and they observed as under: "... This contention cannot be accepted for simple reason that it is well- established law that if law permits anything to be done in particular manner or if it prohibits doing thing in particular manner, it cannot be allowed to be done in any other manner. Supreme Court laid down in Narbada Prasad v. Chhaganlal AIR 1969 SC 395, above dictum in following form (p. 397): 'It is well understood rule of law that if thing is to be done in particular manner it must be done in that manner or not at all. Other modes of compliance are excluded.' We respectfully follow above principle of law enunciated by Supreme Court and hold that since valuation report under section 16A cannot be obtained for purpose of deciding question whether completed assessment should be reopened or not on ground that section 16A cannot be applied in such cases, same cannot be used by indirect process of treating it as non-statutory administrative or executive document. This would be circumventing provisions of section 16A and permitting same effect even after holding that under section 16A neither this report can be called nor it can be used." (p. 331) Their Lordships have further observed as under: "The crux of ratio decided in above judgments is that assessee i s required to disclose primary facts which are material for assessment purposes and once he has done so, he is not required to point out what inferences can be drawn from them. It was for ITO to accept or reject these primary facts and to raise such inferences he may deem proper and if he has not done so, it cannot become ground for reopening under section 17(1) (a) and (b ) of Act. Even wrong acceptance, of valuer's report by WTO cannot become ground for reopening because as far as assessee is concerned, report was produced and it was for WTO to accept or reject it on any ground whatsoever. emphasis under section 17(1) (a) is on non-disclosure or failure to disclose. Production of valuer report in support of material fact of value of property is disclosure and could never be termed as non- disclosure, as non-disclosure is antithesis of disclosure." (p. 339) department's contention was that valuation report received is enough for reasonable belief that assessee had failed to disclose material facts truly and fully as result of which wealth escaped assessment. Their Lordships observed as under: "We have given very carefully and thoughtful consideration to various principles enunciated in important judgments mentioned above. relevant portions extracted above from judgments of Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191, CIT v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582, CIT v. Burlop Dealers Ltd. [1971] 79 ITR 609, Chhugamal Rajpal v. S. P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603, Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1, ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437, Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 and of Gujarat High Court in Poonjabhai Vammalidas & Sons (HUF) v. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 251, establish that once assessee discloses primary facts without concealing any material fact there cannot be any basis for belief that assessee had failed to disclose material facts truly and correctly resulting in wealth escaping assessment. If from primary facts more inferences than one could be drawn, it would not be possible to say that assessee should have drawn any particular inference and communicated it to assessing authority. If any evidence can be discovered from books and documents produced by assessee which can be used against assessee, assessee is not under obligation to inform ITO about possible inferences which can be raised against him. omission or failure should be on part of assessee. only obligation on assessee was place all primary facts and once he places those primary facts, his obligation comes to end. It is not for assessee to put forward before ITO version contrary to version that he was contending for. It is ITO to make all necessary enquiries and draw proper inferences. If it becomes case of oversight it cannot be said that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. So far as adequacy of grounds is concerned, court cannot investigate but existence of such belief can be challenged. expression 'reason to believe' does not mean purely subjective satisfaction of assessing authority. It can neither be pretence merely to reopen assessment and it must be held in good faith. If assessing authority, relying upon record, only makes mistake responsibility cannot be ascribed to omission or failure on part of assessee." (p. 344) Thus, according to their Lordships in above case, once all primary facts wee disclosed truly and fully as required under law, WTO is only required to make assessment and once he makes assessment by estimating value, which valuation is matter of estimate, and to some extent guess work also. Once all this having been done assessee has discharged his duties truly and fully as regards material facts. According to their Lordships if t h e assessing authority, relying upon record only makes mistake, responsibility cannot be ascribed to omission or failure on part of assessee. Therefore as held in above case there could be no non-disclosure by assessee under section 17(1) (a) as regards true material facts. They have also observed that 'it cannot be said that WTO has received any information under section 17(1) (b) simply because Valuation Officer has given different valuation of property later on, on reference by WTO' (p. 346). facts of above case are somewhat similar to facts of case of assessee in consideration. only difference is that case before their Lordships of Rajasthan High Court was in regard to reference which was made after assessment was completed and in respect of those very assessment years for which reopening was made on basis of Valuation Officer's report. In instant case, reference to Valuation Officer was made for earlier year and report was received subsequent to passing of assessment order for year under review after making marginal addition to wealth returned. When we compare issues of present case with case before their Lordships, situation is almost identical and, therefore, case would be applicable to facts of case and, therefore, for observations made by their Lordships of Rajasthan High Court with which we respectfully agree and which is binding on us, we hold that action initiated under section 17(1) (a ) in instant case before us is bad in law and is, accordingly, quashed. 6. In result, appeal of assessee is fully allowed. Per Shri H. S. Ahluwalia, Judicial Member - I have had benefit of going through order proposed by my learned brother and with great respect to detailed discussion and exposition of law made by him, I am afraid I have not been able to endorse his ultimate conclusion. 2. In order to appreciate issue, facts of case need be briefly mentioned. 3. Proceedings for assessment of this very wealth were pending in relation to earlier year, i. e., 969-70 and reference had already been made to Valuation Officer under section 16A by WTO on 23-1-1976 requesting him to determine fair market value of property as on 31-3-1969. 4. return of wealth was filed at figure of Rs. 58,937 (which was also figure mentioned in earlier year and was below taxable limit) on 29-1- 1971 and was still pending when on 22-3-1976 assessment was suddenly made at net figure of Rs. 65,000 which again was not taxable. this was not on basis of any enquiry or any other material but was based upon agreement only. When question of valuation for earlier year had been referred to Valuation Officer for determining market value of property under section 16A at least assessee should have brought this fact to notice of WTO. WTO ordinarily would not remember entire facts of case of each assessee, but assessee would know about stage of proceedings of his own case. 5. In Trustees and Executors of Late Shri Shamji Kheta's case (supra) it has been held that where in absence of true and full disclosure of material facts, ITO who is aware of it proceeds to make assessment, circumstances will not operate as bar to subsequent reopening thereof. Further, in CIT v. Tara Chand Khanna [1984] 148 ITR 647 (Punj. & Har.) it has been held that it is duty of assessee not only to disclose particulars of assets belonging to him but also estimated value thereof. In circumstances from fact of assessee disclosing value of property at Rs. 58,937, no informing WTO about factum of reference in relation to earlier year and getting agreed assessment at Rs. 65,000 (which was not at all taxable) it can safely be presumed that ITO was justified in believing that by reason of omission or failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of his net wealth for relevant year same has escaped assessment. 6. Coming to case relied upon by my learned brother, namely, Brig. B. Lall's case (supra), facts in that case were that value of share of property owned by petitioner was estimated by registered valuer who had submitted detailed valuation report during assessment proceedings. same had been accepted by WTO after discussing case with assessee's representative. assessment order contained computation of net wealth as per valuation certificates and reports. In case of one property, price of open land and gallery has also been increased over price mentioned in earlier year. At top of p. 314, their Lordships observed that it was after in earlier year. At top of p. 314, their Lordships observed that it was after intelligent and conscious application of mind that WTO had assessed petitioner and while doing so, had accepted valuation of Jaipur and Jodhpur properties as per valuer's certificate and report. In one case basis for reopening was revenue audit of department and in relation to other cases argument of assessee's representative is contained in penultimate paragraph, which reads as under: "The first and foremost contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that section 16A can be invoked only for purpose of making assessment and this assessment can include proceedings of reassessment also after same has already been initiated but excludes proceedings where assessment is complete and such assessment has also not been reopened under section 1 so far...." (p. 317) Again last paragraph contains following observations by their Lordships: "... language of section 16A is 'for purpose of making assessment'. This would no doubt include reassessment but this contemplates case where assessment is not complete or final. It contemplates case where no assessment has been made. It would also include case where even after assessment has become final, matter has been reopened under section 17 because that would also be case of 'for purpose of making assessment'. It will not certainly include case where assessment is complete and such assessment has not been reopened under section 17. ... But for that purpose without reopening case under section 17 reference cannot be made under section 16A. This position would also be made clear from sub- section (6) of section 16A. .... Therefore, it is clear that such power of reference can be exercised only when assessment is not complete. In case where assessment is complete and it has not been reopened, this power under section 16A cannot be exercised by WTO." (p. 319) I again found following observation: "This makes opening phrase 'for purpose of making assessment' extremely important and opening gate through which and through which alone, WTO can have access and approach to Valuation Officer. opening gate of section 16A is wholly, solely and exclusively governed and contained in phrase 'for purpose of making assessment' which, of course, can include reassessment as per definition of assessment as mentioned above." (p. 324) One of reasons for quashing reopening can be gathered from following observations made by their Lordships: "... It is not intelligible why WTO did not get valuation done as on 31st March of every year because if he wanted to adopted rental methods, rent of properties were available to him, in income-tax returns, which were admittedly filed by both assessee...." (p. 330) In present case, most important fact to note is that reference had already been made to Valuation Officer in respect of assessment for earlier year which was pending and, therefore, reference itself was perfectly valid in law. It is correct that in this case there are some observations of their Lordships which go to support view taken by my learned brother but each case is authority for what it decides and not for any collateral observations which may not apply to another case which has some different facts. I have already analyzed fact of this case at length above and in exceptional circumstances of this case in which agreed assessment had been made without waiting for report of Valuation Officer for earlier year in respect of which reference was already pending, present assessment certainly was under misapprehension and if assessee managed to get, it was fraud on policy of law. 7. Assuming for argument's sake that it be accepted that assessee had not been guilty of not disclosing fully and truly all materials facts necessary for assessment of his net wealth in present case, report of Valuation Officer is at least information within meaning of clause (b) of section 17(1) that notwithstanding that thee had been no omission or failure as is referred to in clause (a) net wealth of assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for that year. It is matter of common knowledge that prices of immovable properties in city of Jaipur are rising from year to year. There can be no two opinions about fact that market price of person property in subsequent year must be higher than market price in earlier year. Therefore, moment report of Valuation Officer which was in pursuance of valid reference was received by WTO, he could certainly have reasonable belief that wealth of assessee had been under assessed in respect of present year and, therefore, he could have at least reopened assessment under clause (b) of section 17(1). reopening of present assessment, cannot, therefore, be said to be bad in law because at least there was definite information with WTO that wealth of assessee had been assessed at lower figure. In earlier year, report has been fully scrutinized a definite value has been determined to be market value of property in dispute. Obviously value in this year cannot be less. I would, therefore, hold that value of land and building in question, determined at Rs. 1,01,500 by AAC was correct and present appeal ought to be dismissed. ORDER UNDER SECTION 24(11) OF WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957, READ WITH SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 255 OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 As there has been difference of opinion between us, following point is referred to Third Member for his opinion under sub-section (11) of section 24 of 1957 Act, read with sub-section (4) of section 255 of Income-tax Act, 1961: "Whether reopening of wealth-tax assessment completed on 25-3- 1976 by Wealth-tax Officer was in accordance with law?" THIRD MEMBER ORDER Per Shri Ch. G. Krishnamurthy, Senior Vice President - following difference of opinion between learned Member of Jaipur Bench in above case was referred to me by President as Third Member for my opinion under section 255(4): "Whether reopening of Wealth-tax assessment completed on 25-3- 1976 by Wealth-tax Officer was in accordance with law?" 2. assessment in this case was originally made on 25-1976 on net wealth of Rs. 65,000, which included land and building owned by assessee and used by him for his business purposes. value of land and building was shown at Rs. 58,937. departmental Valuation Officer in connection with assessment for assessment year 1969-70 valued this property at Rs. 1,15,000 on reference made to him under section 16A (5). On ground that value of same property for subsequent year could not b e less than value of property taken in earlier year, WTO reopened assessment under section 17(1) (a ) and reassessed it. question before Tribunal was whether reassessment was proper or to n d whether assessment was properly reopened or not. Implicit in this question was further question whether assessee disclosed fully and truly al material facts necessary for making assessment of fair market value of above property. contention of assessee before Tribunal was that for year under appeal there was no reference made to Valuation Officer that reference to Valuation Officer made in assessment year 1969-70 which was pending at time when assessment for present year was concluded could not have been made use of. assessee had disclosed fully and truly all material particulars. WTO did not choose to refer matter to Valuation Officer. Therefore, valuation report obtained long after assessment was made though it related to earlier year could not be made basis for formation of belief that wealth assessable for year under appeal escaped assessment. Another contention raised was that WTO applied his mind while making assessment of this year because as against value of Rs. 58,937 shown, its value was adopted at Rs. 65,000 and further addition of Rs. 7,000 made must be result of application of mind by WTO and having applied his mind in particular way, he could not now choose to say that assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material particulars all because Valuation Officer's value was found to be much higher. It was also contended relying upon decision of Rajasthan High Court in Brig. B. Lall's case (supra) that Valuation Officer's report could not be information for formation of belief that wealth had escaped assessment. learned Accountant Member relying upon decision of Rajasthan High Court agreed with assessee's contention that reopening of assessment was bad. learned Judicial Member felt that there was failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material particulars and, consequently, wealth escaped assessment and reopening of assessment was valid. He was of opinion that valuation report could be relied upon by WTO and that decision of Rajasthan High Court was not properly appreciated and applied. He also held that value placed upon this property by Valuation Officer for earlier year at Rs. 1,15,000 not being in dispute, value of same property for subsequent year could not be less. This meant that there was undervaluation of asset for year under appeal. Thus, difference of opinion as formulated above that arose between learned Members was referred to me for my opinion. 3. On going through facts and after considering argument addressed to me, I am of opinion that view taken by learned Judicial Member is justified and correct and I would agree with it. essence of order of learned Accountant Member is reliance upon decision of Rajasthan High Court in Brig. B. Lall's case (supra) which, according to him, applied to facts of case in full. facts of this case were: reassessment proceeding for years 1969-70 to 1973-74 were started against assessment based upon audit objection and also on report under section 16A of Valuation Officer, who had valued property as on 1-4-1974. assessee in original assessment proceedings submitted reports by approved valuer's for each of years under consideration and assessments were made after notice to assessee and discussion with their authorised representatives. When notice for making reassessment was issued, based upon audit objection and report of Valuation Officer under section 16A , writ petitions were filed before Rajasthan High Court to quash notices for reassessment. High Court found in this case that reference to Valuation Officer was made by WTO after completion of assessment. question then arose whether report of Valuation Officer constituted information within meaning of section 17(1) (b ) or provides reason for belief that wealth has escaped assessment but to assessee's failure to disclose material facts under section 17(1) (a) . Since reference to Valuation Officer was made after assessment was completed, High Court held that section 16A has no relevance and cannot be applied after assessment is completed and before reassessment has commenced. Rajasthan High Court pointed out that there is no provision or even remote legislative intent to arm to WTO with power to refer question of valuation of property in completed assessment after he has accepted valuation of registered valuer simply for purpose of finding out whether his suspicion that completed assessment was based on undervaluation was correct so as to enable him to create aground or foundation either for reasonable belief under section 17(1) (a) or for information under section 17(1) (b ). In either case, reference, in such circumstances, would be based on sort of roving or fishing enquiry for either confirming or removing his suspicion and that is not permissible under section 16A. It was for this reason that Rajasthan High Court held that Valuation Officer's report given on reference made to him after completion of assessment can neither constitute information within meaning section 17(1) (b) n or provide reason for belief that income has escaped assessment due to assessee's failure to disclose material facts under section 17(1) (a). High Court pointed out that report submitted by Valuation Officer would be invalid reference and report must be treated as non est and void ab initio. High Court also pointed out that bald reference to audit objection would not be sufficient and could not from basis for reassessment proceedings. 4. Now in this case reference to Valuation Officer was validly made while making assessment for assessment year 1969-70. There is no dispute on this fact. That reference was pending with Valuation Officer at time when assessment for year under appeal was being completed. report given by Valuation Officer as consequence of valid reference cannot be said to be non est in law or void ab initio. That report can, therefore, be acted upon for purpose of making assessment for assessment year 1969-70. In light of that valuation report if it is found that for subsequent year value of same property was taken at reduced value, that would give definitely information to WTO that wealth had escaped assessment. question would then be whether there is any failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. It is now on record that no particulars whatsoever regarding factory building were furnished while filing return of wealth. Neither particulars of area of land, nor particulars of build up area and nature of construction were disclosed. extent of open land was not at all mentioned. In absence of these particulars which are vital for purpose of arriving at correct market value of property, it cannot be said that assessee disclosed fully and truly all material particulars. I am, therefore, of opinion that there was failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for making assessment. Therefore, reopening of wealth-tax assessment by WTO was in accordance with law and was not opposed to law. Rajasthan High Court decision was in my opinion, not properly appreciated by learned Accountant Member because that was case where valuation report was held to be non est in law and could not constitute information because that was report obtained on reference made not in accordance with provisions of law. But here report obtained was in accordance with provisions of law and valid reference made to Valuation Officer. This makes all difference. I, therefore, agree with view expressed by learned Judicial Member. Now matter will go before regular Bench for disposal of appeal according to majority opinion. *** KAMAL CHAND KASLIWAL v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER