I.S. NIGAM, A.M. ORDER There are fourteen appeals relating to asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1971-72 against consolidated order of AAC, 'N' Range, Bombay and three appeals relating to asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75 against consolidated order of CWT (A) XI, Bombay, filed by Revenue. There are also three cross objections relating to asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75 filed by assessee against consolidated order of CWT (A). All appeals filed by Revenue and assessee's cross objections, for sake of convenience, are disposed of by common order. 2. assessee is HUF. voluntary disclosure dt. 31st Dec., 1975 was filed under Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975 (later on replaced by Voluntary Disclosure of Income & Wealth Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as 'VDS'). net wealth declared under this voluntary disclosure was as follows: "Statement of value of assets/WT returns not filed. Assessment Year Amount of net wealth Rs. 1. 1958-59 3,46,750 2. 1959-60 3,46,750 3. 1960-61 3,46,750 4. 1961-62 3,94,750 5. 1962-63 3,94,750 6. 1963-64 3,94,750 7. 1964-65 3,74,750 8. 1965-66 4,84,600 9. 1966-67 4,04,600 10. 1967-68 2,35,000 11. 1968-69 2,35,000 12. 1969-70 2,35,000 13. 1970-71 3,85,000 14. 1971-72 3,85,000 15. 1972-73 3,85,000 16. 1973-74 4,95,000 17. 1974-75 4,95,000 18. 1975-76 4,95,000 Note: necessary wealth-tax returns for above assessment years are not filed." We were given to understand at time of hearing of appeals that wealth-tax chargeable in respect of net wealth for various assessment years for which declaration was made was paid by assessee o r invested in securities as required under VDS. Before WTO, in course of assessment proceedings for asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1974-75, it was claimed that since assessee had made disclosure under VDS which had been accepted by CWT, it was not open to WTO to make assessment on value of properties at amount higher than what was disclosed in declaration under VDS. WTO, however, did not accept this contention and made reference to Valuation Officer to determine value of properties at Koregaon Park, Poona, Worli, Bombay and Dhanji Street, Bombay. valuation of Ville Parle property was not referred to Valuation Officer since valuation report of Valuation Officer, Unit-III, Bombay, dt. 27th March, 1976 in connection with income-tax assessment for asst. yr. 1967-68 was already available. There was one more ancestral property at Ramgarh, value of which was shown by assessee in returns at Rs. 15,000, but regarding which details were not available. In respect of this property also, WTO did not consider it necessary to make reference to Valuation Officer. result was that value of properties at Koregaon Park, Poona, Worli, Bombay and Dhanji Street, Bombay was taken by WTO in conformity with report of Valuation Officer under s. 16A of WT Act, 1957, while value of Ville Parle property was determined on basis of valuation report of Valuation Officer, Unit-III Bombay, dt. 27th March, 1976 as already stated. value of ancestral property at Ramgarh, in absence of details, was estimated by WTO in various assessment years. There were appeals against assessment orders. matter first came up for asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75 before CWT (A)-XI, Bombay. He held that since declaration was made under VDS which was accepted by CWT, it was not open to WTO to make assessment on higher figure and value of various properties at higher figure than what was disclosed in returns was wrongly taken by WTO. For other asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1971-72, matter came up before AAC, 'N' Range, Bombay, who also held that WTO ought to have accepted net wealth as declared by assessee under VDS and assessments made on higher amount by WTO were not justified. 3 . Revenue is aggrieved and has, therefore, come up in present appeals before us for asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1974-75. assessee has also come up in cross objections which are limited only to asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75 with grievance that even on merits, CWT (A) ought to have held that values of properties as declared in declaration under VDS were justified and values estimated by WTO were highly excessive and arbitrary. Here it will be necessary to point out that grievance of Revenue in appeals before us is limited to valuation of immovable properties at Worli, Bombay, Dhanji Street, Bombay and Koregaon Park, Poona, for all assessment years under consideration before us, and Ville Parle property only for asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1966-67 and not for subsequent asst. yrs. 1967- 68 to 1974-75 since Ville Parle property was sold during previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1967-68. Similarly, there is no appeal by Revenue against acceptance of value of ancestral property at Ramgarh by AAC for asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1971-72 and by CWT (A) for asst. yrs. AAC for asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1971-72 and by CWT (A) for asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75. 4. learned Departmental Representative, Sri Srivastava, submitted to us that declaration under VDS only gives immunity to assessee from any penalty or prosecution in respect of wealth disclosed in declaration, or to assessment of wealth disclosed under declaration otherwise than as provided under VDS and does not extend to stopping IT Department from making enquiry whether disclosure made by assessee w s correct and complete. Elaborating on his argument, Sri Srivastava submitted that it was always open to WTO to enquire whether value of properties declared in returns had not been understated even if assessee had made declaration in respect of value of those properties under VDS and VDS nowhere stops Revenue authorities from making enquiries regarding correct income or correct net wealth on which assessment was to be made. Reference in this connection was made by him to provisions of sub-s. (1) of s. 15 of VDS wherein it has been laid down that wealth declared under VDS will not be taken into account for purpose of any penalty or prosecution and this itself suggests that assessment can be made on net wealth much higher than what was declared under VDS. Summing up, Sri Srivastava vehemently argued before us that WTO was perfectly justified in making reference to Valuation Officer to determine value of various properties and to take value of properties in accordance with report of Valuation Officer and AAC for asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1971-72 and CWT (A) for asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75 wrongly held that once declaration was made under VDS, it was not open to WTO to make assessment on higher amount and consequently net wealth as disclosed under VDS should be accepted. 5 . On other hand, assessee's learned counsel, Sri R.C. Desai submitted to us that declaration under VDS was not return under WT Act and, therefore, what was declared under VDS was distinct from assessment proceedings initiated by filing of return. He, therefore, submitted that once declaration was made under VDS which was accepted by CWT, WTO had no power to go behind declaration and adopt value of any property at figure higher than what was declared under VDS. Reference in this connection was made by him to Board's Circular No. 180, dt. 15th Oct., 1975 (101 ITR Statutes 88) explaining provisions of VDS. According to Sri Desai, declarations under VDS were under bona fide belief that assessee by making declaration will put end to all its troubles and will buy peace and very purpose of VDS will be set at naught if declarations made under VDS were to be scrutinised by WTOs and assessments were made on higher amounts, He, therefore, submitted that WTO was not justified in taking value of properties at higher amount than what was declared in declarations under VDS and AAC for asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1971-72 and CWT (A) for asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75 rightly directed that net wealth as declared by assessee under VDS should be accepted. 6 . Alternatively, Sri Desai contended before us that even on merits values of properties as given in declaration under VDS and in wealth-tax returns were justified and values adopted by WTO on basis of report of Valuation Officer were highly excessive and unjustified. Reference in this connection was made by him to cross objections filed by assessee for asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75. 7. We have carefully considered rival submissions. At outset, it will be necessary here to point out that AAC in appeals for asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1971-72 and CWT (A) for asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75 have accepted value of ancestral house at Ramgarh as declared by assessee in declaration under VDS and in wealth-tax returns and against this action of first appellate authority, Revenue is not in appeal before us. Similarly, grievance of Department regarding determination of value of property at Ville Parle relates only to asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1966-67 and not thereafter when property no more belonged to assessee. It is for remaining properties at Koregaon Park, Poona, Worli, Bombay and Dhanji Street, Bombay that WTO for all seventeen assessment years under consideration before us took value of properties in conformity with report of Valuation Officer and first appellate authority held that value as given by assessee in declaration under authority held that value as given by assessee in declaration under VDS and in wealth-tax returns should be accepted and against this action of first appellate authority for all seventeen assessment years before us, Revenue is in appeal before us. Under Voluntary Disclosure of Income & Wealth Ordinance, 1975 (later on replaced by Voluntary Disclosure of Income & Wealth Act, 1976), where assessee made declaration and paid tax chargeable thereon and/or invested amount in securities as provided under VDS, CWT had no alternative but to accept disclosure and assessee was entitled to immunity in respect of amount declared under VDS as provided under said Act. This immunity has been mentioned in scheme itself and provides that notwithstanding anything contained under Act, net wealth or as case may be value so declared in declaration under VDS shall not be taken into account for purpose of any proceeding relating to imposition of penalty on person making declaration or for purposes of prosecution, under WT Act. This clearly implies that it is open to WT authorities to investigate and find out whether declaration made by assessee under VDS is correct and complete. WTO can make as assessment on amount higher than what was declared in declaration under VDS and immunity of assessee from penalty or prosecution will be limited to amount which was disclosed in declaration under VDS. May be there is some force in argument of assessee's learned counsel, Sri Desai, that declarations under VDS were made by assessee in hope that this will put to end troubles and they will buy peace but this cannot be justification for understatement of values of properties in declaration and on that basis to claim that even if values of properties were understated in declarations under VDS, Revenue authorities are stopped from making enquiries regarding what was correct value of properties and making assessment on correct net wealth. There is, therefore, lot of force in contention of learned Departmental Representative, Sri Srivastava, that even where assessee makes declaration under VDS, it is open to Revenue authorities to investigate whether declaration made is correct and complete and to make assessment on correct net wealth. While it is true that proceeding under VDS are distinct and separate from proceedings of normal assessments, it is obvious that once assessment proceedings are initiated by filing of return, assessment has to be made in accordance with provisions of law and Revenue authorities cannot be stopped from making assessment on correct net wealth simply because assessee in declaration made under VDS has understated value of properties which belonged to him. Considering all this, we agree with learned Departmental Representative, Sri Srivastava that it was open to WTO to ascertain correct value of properties belonging to assessee and to make assessment on correct net wealth. direction of AAC, therefore, for asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1971-72 and CWT (A) for asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75 to WTO to accept net wealth as shown in declaration under VDS and in wealth-tax returns was not correct. 8 . This brings us to alternative contention of assessee's learned counsel, Sri Desai that even on merits values of properties as given in declaration under VDS and in wealth-tax returns were justified and values adopted by WTO based on report of Valuation Officer were highly excessive and unjustified. There was no occasion to consider this alternative contention either by AAC or by CWT (A) because they had accepted main contention that net wealth as shown in declaration under VDS and wealth-tax returns should be accepted. In interest of justice, therefore, we direct AAC/CWT (A) to deal with this contention and take decision thereon on merits and in accordance with law. 9 . Before we conclude, we would like to place on record our deep appreciation of very able manner in which both learned Departmental Representatives, Sri Srivastava as well as assessee's learned counsel, Sri Desai put forward their respective arguments. 1 0 . appeals filed by Revenue are partly allowed. cross objections for asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75 filed by assessee now no more survive and for statistical purposes will be treated as dismissed. *** FIFTEENTH WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. RAMGOPAL GANPATRAI (HUF)