B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, CJ. ( 1 ) UNDER Section 27 (3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal has stated the following questions in respect of the assessment years 1965-66 to 1967-68 : -" ( 1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the assessments for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70 made by the wealth-tax Officer under the provisions of Section 17 (1) (a) of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessees failure to disclose all primary facts in some of the years and her disclosure of only part of the primary facts in other years ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the assessment orders on the one hand and in directing the Wealth-tax Officer to estimate the value of properties in a particular manner on the other hand ?" Similarly, with respect to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the following two questions have been referred :" (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in quashing the assessment in respect of the mining lease rights on the view that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was based only in respect of the Katghar house ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in law in holding that the reassessment was without jurisdiction in respect of the Katghar house ?" The assessee is an individual. The assessment years concerned herein are 1965-66 to 1969-70. According to the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal, assessments for these years were originally completed including in the net wealth of the assessee the value of the property at 22, Katghar Road, Allahabad. The value of the said asset was taken at Rs. 16,640 as disclosed by the assessee. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1970-71, the Wealth-tax officer came to know that the assessee had gifted two plots out of the open land attached to the said property, the value of which was shown as Rs. 1,63,175. The Wealth-tax Officer was, accordingly, of the view that the value of this property had been understated and underassessed. Accordingly, he reopened the assessment under Section 17 (1) (a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. In these reassessment proceedings, the said asset was valued at Rs. 4,66,020. 1,63,175. The Wealth-tax Officer was, accordingly, of the view that the value of this property had been understated and underassessed. Accordingly, he reopened the assessment under Section 17 (1) (a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. In these reassessment proceedings, the said asset was valued at Rs. 4,66,020. In addition thereto, it was found that there are certain minerals in another land and a lease was granted for quarrying the same. He included the value of the leasehold right (valued at Rs. 2,52,000) to the assessees wealth. ( 2 ) THE assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which was dismissed. The assessee then carried the matter to the Tribunal in further appeal. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the reopening of the assessment under Section 17 was bad. The tribunal opined that the assessee cannot be said to have failed to furnish full particulars of the said asset during the original assessment proceedings. Merely because during the subsequent assessment proceedings, the value was found to be higher, it is no ground for reopening the assessment, said the Tribunal. The Tribunal also went into the merits of the question, namely, the question of valuation and expressed its opinion. Thereupon, the Revenue applied for and obtained this reference. ( 3 ) UNDER Section 17 (1) (a) of the Wealth-tax Act, an assessment can be reopened if the wealth-tax Officer has reason to believe that by reason of omission or failure on the part of any person to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of his net wealth, net wealth chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year. The question, therefore, is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee cannot be said to be guilty of failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of her net wealth. The statement of case says that the assessee had disclosed this asset in her returns. She had also disclosed its value as Rs. 16,640. It is no doubt true that she did not disclose the extent of the property but the question is, was she bound to do so. It is one thing to say that the assessee could have disclosed all those particulars and yet another thing to say that she ought to have disclosed those particulars. 16,640. It is no doubt true that she did not disclose the extent of the property but the question is, was she bound to do so. It is one thing to say that the assessee could have disclosed all those particulars and yet another thing to say that she ought to have disclosed those particulars. For this purpose, we called upon learned standing counsel to make available to us a pro forma of the wealth-tax return in vogue for the said assessment years. He has, accordingly, produced the same which we have perused. ( 4 ) ANNEXURE 2 of the pro forma relates to immovable property (other than agricultural land and buildings in the immediate vicinity of such land used for agricultural purpose) located in India other than those included in annexure 1. A table is appended containing four columns. Column one relates to identification of the property. Column two carries the heading "description of property". Column three is annual value and column four is estimated capital value on valuation date. In other words, there is no column which required the assessee to give the particulars relating to extent of property or other particulars. The assessee described the property and gave her valuation. It was open to the Wealth-tax Officer to call upon the assessee to furnish particulars of such property but he did not do so during the original assessment proceedings. He quietly accepted the valuation submitted by the assessee. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the assessee has omitted or failed to disclose truly and/or fully all material particulars necessary for assessing her wealth. In the circumstances, we must hold that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment in this case for the aforesaid assessment years was not warranted in law. ( 5 ) MR. R. K. Agrawal, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, sought to bring to our notice a factual aspect, namely, that in the returns relating to the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70, the assessee did not at all disclose this asset in her returns, though she had disclosed the same in her return relating to the, assessment year 1965-66. He has produced the original returns filed by the assessee along with the relevant records. He has produced the original returns filed by the assessee along with the relevant records. His contention appears to be right as a fact, except with respect to the return for the assessment year 1967-68 where a note is appended saying that this property is exempt under Section 5 of the Act. Even so, we cannot take note of this factual aspect. The statement of case proceeds on the assumption, as we have already stated above, that the assessee did disclose this property in her original assessment proceedings. We must take the said statement of the case as correct. We do not know what happened after the filing of the returns. May be, the said asset was disclosed later. Suffice it to say that we have to, and we do, go by the facts stated in the statement of case and cannot take notice of facts outside the record before us. ( 6 ) FOR the above reasons, the questions referred are answered in the affirmative, i. e. , in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs. .