O.P. JAIN, J.M. These appeals by Revenue and cross-objections by assessee are directed against consolidated order of AAC dt. 29th April 1985 relating to asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1977-78. Common questions are involved in both appeals and as such, they are being disposed of by common order. Brief facts relating to asst. yr. 1975-76 are that Assessing Officer had issued notices to assessee under s. 14(2) of WT Act, which was served on assessee on 29th January, 1980 which was served on that notice, tha assessee had filed return of wealth and words "duplicate return" was mentioned at top of it. After said return was filed, WTO had completed assessment on 28th March, 1980 under s. 16-(3) of said Act. assessee went up in appeal before AAC and set up variety of grounds relating to inclusion of some assets in his net wealth. Subsequently, additional ground was also raised to effect that WTO has erred in framing assessment on notice under s. 17 of Act without disposing of return filed under s. 14 (wrongly mentioned as 34) without and as such entire proceedings are invalid ab initio. AAC found favour with that ground and following decision of Supreme Court reported in CIT vs. Rachhordas Karsondas (1659) 36 ITR 569 (SC) cancelled assessment. AAC, however, did not dispose of other grounds of appeal, which had been raised by assessee. Aggrieved by his order, Revenue has come up in appeal before us. Similarly, during asst. yr. 1977-78, notice issued under s. 14 of Act could not be served on assessee. Thereafter, notice under s. 17 of WT Act was issued by WTO and same was served on assessee on 15th March, 1982. After service of that notice, assessee had filed return of his wealth mentioning at top of it that it is 'Duplicate.' However, no evidence was produced before WTO in proof of filing of original return. After filing of aforesaid return, Assessing Officer proceeded to complete assessment under s. 16 (3) of Act and assessment was completed on 18th March, 1982. On appeal, AAC had held that re- assessment proceedings are invalid and, therefore assessment was cancelled. Aggrieved by that order, Revenue has come up in appeal before us. assessee has preferred cross-objections supporting order of AAC. We have heard ld. representatives on both sides. Shri G.N. Srivastava, appearing on behalf of Revenue, has argued at out-set that AAC had admitted photo-stat copies of receipts relating to filing of original returns and in admitting such receipts he has contravened r. 5A(2) of rules framed under WT Act, in as much as no reason have been recorded by him, for admitting additional evidence nor any opportunity had been provided to WTO to rebut additional evidence so filed. On other hand, Shri R. S. Gupta appearing on behalf of assessee, has contended that original return was already on record of WTO and as such, no additional evidence has been adduced before AAC. On consideration of rival contentions, we find force in what has been contended on behalf of Revenue. It is borne out from orders of AAC that photostat copies of receipt were filed by assessee before him. In assessment order relating to asst. yr. 1977-78, WTO has categorically made mention of fact that although assessee claims that original return was filed by him on 20th July, 1977, but he did not produce any receipt in support of his contention. It is thus, evident that receipt relating to filing of original return had not been produced before WTO and such receipts have been filed before AAC and he had admitted same without recording any reasons and without affording any opportunity to WTO to rebut that evidence. It follows, therefore that r. 5A(2) of WT Rules had been contravened in admission of additional evidence. Sub-r. (2) and 3 of r. 5A are extracted below for reference: "2. No evidence shall be admitted under sub-r. (1) unless AAC (or as case may be, Commr.(Appeals) records in writing reasons for its admission. AAC or, as case may be, Commr. (Appeals) shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless WTO has been allowed reasonable opportunity." In view of foregoing reasons, we are of opinion that impugned order of AAC deserves to be quashed. There are yet other reasons for quashing said orders. AAC has cancelled assessments for simple reason that assessment was to be made on basis of original return and in absence thereof re- assessment is not valid. He had placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, already referred above. Shri Srivastava, appearing on behalf of Revenue has argued that limitation for framing assessment relating to asst. yr. 1975-76 was upto 31st March 1980 and assessment for asst. yr. 1977-78 could be completed by 31st March 1982. assessments in question had been completed within that time limit. As per assessee, returns filed after issue of notice under s. 17 of Act are duplicate returns of originals already filed. It was therefore, contended that duplicate returns are as good as original returns and it was open to W T O to complete assessments on basis of so called duplicate returns. He has also pointed out that in completing assessment, WTO did not have recourse to provisions of s. 17 of WT Act and as such, AAC has committed error in cancelling assessment. On other hand, Shri Gupta, appearing for assessee has argued that duplicate returns had been made in pursuance of notice issued under s. 17 of WT Act and as such, it was not open to WTO to complete assessment on basis of such returns without first disposing of original returns. He has also submitted that since no assessment had been made in pursuance of original returns, there was no question of issuing notice under s. 17 and notice issued under that section is invalid ab initio and all proceedings based on such notice are also invalid. He has also submitted that original returns had been filed voluntarily. We have given our anxious consideration to submissions advanced by both sides. It is true that returns which have been claimed as duplicate by assessee had been filed after issue of notices under s. 17 of Act. However, there is nothing in said returns to suggest that they have been filed in pursuance of notice issued under s. 17. very fact that they are claimed to be duplicate is suggestive of fact that there is no link between notice issued under s. 17 and said returns. mention of word 'duplicate' goes issued under s. 17 and said returns. mention of word 'duplicate' goes to indicate that said returns were copies of original and as such they would relate back to date of original returns. Besides this, there is nothing in assessment order to suggest that Assessing Officer was completing assessment having recourse to provisions of s. 17 of Act. On other hand, it is specially mentioned in assessment orders that assessment is being made under s. 16(3) of Act. In these circumstances, fact that notice had been issued to assessee under s. 17 of Act is of little consequence. Shri Gupta has vehemently argued that since assessment had not been framed in pursuance of returns originally filed and it was not open to WTO to issue notice under s. 17 of Act and as such, issue of such notice is invalid. There appears force in that contention. In that view, we find support from CIT vs. Ranchhordas Karsondas (supra), on which reliance has been placed by assessee and reference of which has been made by AAC in his order. fact that notice was invalid, leads us to conclusion that since notice issued under s. 17 of Act was invalid, it would have no effect and it would be open to WTO to complete assessment in ordinary course. As already indicated above it is evident that assessment in question had been completed in ordinary course and as such, AAC was wrong in cancelling assessment. Since assessment have been made on basis of returns, which are claimed as duplicate by assessee, it cannot be held by any stretch of imagination that WTO has completed assessments ignoring original returns. That being so, we feel that assessee gets no support from case of Ranchhordas Karsondas already referred above. For reasons stated above, orders of AAC have to be set aside. s already observed above, AAC had cancelled assessment without disposing of other grounds of appeal. In circumstances, we consider it appropriate to send back appeals to him for disposal on merits and we direct accordingly. In result, cross-objections are dismissed, and appeals for statistical purposes shall be treated as allowed. *** WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. HARI OM PRAKASH