This appeal by assessee is directed against order of AAC and relates to assessment year 1972-73. From order of WTO it appears that assessee is HUF and it had filed return declaring wealth of Rs. 6,79,044 on 31-3-1980. Subsequently revised return was filed on 27-3-1981 declaring net wealth of Rs. 5,89,440. revised return was stated to be on basis of valuation under rule 1BB of Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ('the Rules'). It also appears from order of WTO that assessment has been made under section 16(3), read with section 17, of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). It is on basis of these facts that assessee has raised ground that assessment made by WTO was time barred as it could not have been made on 29-3-1985. This issue as such has not been taken up before AAC though it was stated before him that assessment was bad in law. learned counsel, however, submitted that point of law which goes to root of matter can be raised before Tribunal. He pointed out that under provisions of Act, return of wealth can be filed either under section 14 or under section 15 and where WTO initiates action under section 17 return can be filed under that section read with section 14. He submitted that under section 15 person who has not furnished return under section 14 may furnish return at any time before assessment is made. He contended that return for assessment year 1972-73 was filed on 31-3-1980 and this was valid return. He drew our attention to provisions of section 17A of Act which provides for time limit for completion of assessments. He contended that assessment for assessment year 1975-76 or earlier years had to be completed within four years from 1-4-1975 or one year from date of filing of return under section 15, whichever is later. He, therefore, contended that there was no bar in assessee filing return under section 15 on 31-3-1980. He further contended that if this was valid return WTO could not have taken action under section 17. departmental representative had pointed out that notice under section 17 had been issued on 12-3-1981 and on 27-3-1981 assessee had filed revised return stating that this return should be treated as return under section 17. learned counsel for assessee contended that this action by WTO was invalid and, therefore, whole procedure was vitiated. 2. Our attention was further drawn to provisions of section 17A(2), where time limit for assessments opened under section 17 have been given. This section provides that where assessment is to be made under section 17(1)(a) and notice is served on or before 31st day of March, 1975, then assessment cannot be made at any time after expiration of period of four years from end of assessment year in which such notice is served. He submitted that WTO has proceeded to complete assessment taking this time limit from this provision. He, however, contended that assessment itself was vitiated as reopening itself was not in order. assessment itself was barred by limitation and WTO could have completed assessment within one year of filing of return by assessee and not after that. learned counsel contended that return filed on 31-3-1980 being valid return any action under section 17 was not justified and proceedings initiated should be held as bad in law. In case return filed by assessee is taken as basis within provisions of section 17 then assessment should have been made by 31-3-1982 which was within one year of filing of revised return by assessee on 27-3-1981. 3. departmental representative submitted that ground regarding tim e bar does not arise out of order of AAC and assessment completed was not time barred as it was assessment under section 17(1)(a) and for such assessments there was four years' time after service of notice on assessee. In this case provisions of section 17(1)(a) were applicable as there was omission or failure on part of assessee to file return under section 14. 4. Having considered rival submissions, we have to determine whether return filed by assessee on 31-3-1980 for assessment year 1972-73 was valid return. If this was valid return, WTO was bound to proceed on basis of this return and he could not have initiated proceedings under section 17. As pointed out above assessee had not filed return within time allowed under section 14. Section 15, however, provides that person can file return at any time before assessment is made if he has not filed return within time allowed under section 14. There is no limit laid down either in section 15 or in section 17A for filing of return after period given under section 15 or in section 17A for filing of return after period given under section 14 has expired. For such returns time limit under section 17A(1)(a) is four years from 1-4-1975 or one year from date of return filed under section 15, whichever is later. language of this sub-section clearly shows that return under section 15 can be filed even later than time contemplated for completion of assessment under section 17A(1). Thus under provisions of Act as they stand, return filed by assessee on 31-3-1980 cannot be held to be invalid return and as this was valid return filed under section 15, WTO had to proceed to make assessment on basis of this return. When once return is pending with WTO, it is not open to him to take action under section 17 as he cannot say that there was any omission or failure on part of assessee to make return under section 14. In this view of matter, notice under section 17 stated to have been issued by WTO on 12-3-1981 would be bad in law and proceedings under section 17 should also be vitiated. However, other normal proceedings initiated with filing of return by assessee could have continued before WTO. In those proceedings revised return was filed on 27-3-1981 and under provisions of section 17A assessment should have been completed within one year of filing of return that is before 31-3-1982. Thus, either proceedings under section 17 are bad in law or assessment order passed in 1985 was time barred. This legal objection of assessee has to be upheld. For deciding this issue we have proceeded on basis of materials which are already available and no further investigation of facts have been necessary. 5. to 11. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involved minor issues.] *** SHIV MOHAN SHARMA (HUF) v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER