PER BENCH : These appeals by the Revenue involve a common issue and therefore, they are disposed of together, for the sake of convenience. All the appeals are barred by limitation by 28 days and except in the case of Smt. Appala Narasamma, the appeals pertain to the A.Ys. 2004-2005 and 2005-2006.

2. Though no petition was filed seeking condonation of delay, it was explained that there was delay in processing the appeal papers, and the ultimate approval granted by the Commissioner, which was beyond the control of the appellant herein. It was also submitted that the only issue involve in these appeals is covered by the decision of theAT in the case of Shri B. Rama Raju and others, Secunderabad vs. ACWT, Central Circle-1, Hyderabad (WTA.No.02/H/2012 & others dated 08.01.2014).

3. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee as well as the Ld. D.R. admitted that the facts are identical in the present appeals also i.e., the A.O. had no valid reason to reopen the assessments and the reopening was made based on certain vague information received by the A.O. with regard to M/s. Satyam Computer Services Ltd., and therefore, the reopening is not valid in law.

4. Having regard to the circumstances, we condone the delay in filing the appeals. By following the decision of theAT (supra), we hold that the reopening of assessments is bad in law. It deserves to be noticed that the case of the assessees before the CIT(A) was that the WTA.Nos.98 to 108/Hyd/2016 Smt. B. Appalanarasamma, Pet Bashirabad (v), Secunderabad & Others. A.O. erred in making any addition in the reopened assessment once there was no addition made on account of reasons recorded for reopening the assessments. It was also contended that the Wealth Tax Officer failed to spell-out the nature of evidence that was in his possession that enabled him to conclude that the taxable wealth requires re-valuation. In otherwords, the reopening was based on assumptions and inferences. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce the operative portion of the order passed by the CIT(A) in the case of Smt. Appala Narasamma wherein the Ld. CIT(A) observed as under :

“5.4. Considering the facts of the cases as enumerated in decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench which are relied upon by the assessee and the facts of the case under reference where it has been established that the AO failed to prove the nexus between the statement of Ramalinga Raju and fudging of accounts of M/s. SCSL and their impact on the group concerns or persons including the assessee/appellant for the purpose of assessing to wealth tax and also for the fact that there is no nexus between the reasons recorded and additions made, I have no hesitation in holding that reopening assessments u/s.17 of Wealth Tax Act for A. Y. 2005-06 in this case is liable to be set aside and the grounds related to this issue are treated as allowed. Since the ground on reopening is allowed, I am of the further opinion that the other grounds relating to the additions made do not require separate consideration or adjudication as they have become academic in nature.”

5. The appellant herein preferred appeals against the orders passed by the CIT(A) by contending that the twin conditions of the amendment to Section 17 were given go bye and only one condition remains i.e., where the A.O. has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and in this case facts are clear that the income has escaped assessment. However, the Revenue has not placed before us any material to indicate that the facts or circumstances in these appeals are different from the case law relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A). The WTA.Nos.98 to 108/Hyd/2016 Smt. B. Appalanarasamma, Pet Bashirabad (v), Secunderabad & Others. Tribunal in the said case observed, under identical circumstances, as under :

“8. ….. ….. As seen from the order of AO even though the assessment was reopened to examine the transaction between M/s. Satyam computers and assessee, no such exercise was undertaken and no findings were given on that issue. The additions made are on revaluation of property which was already revalued in original assessment and denial of exemption claimed on the reason that details were not filed. There is no nexus between the reasons recorded and additions made in the guise of escapement of wealth. We rely upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ganga Saran & Sons P. Ltd. vs. ITO and others (supra) for the proposition that if there is no rational nexus between the "reasons" and the "belief", so that on such reasons the A.O. cannot have reason to believe that any part of the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and such escapement was by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the notice issued by the A.O. is to be struck as invalid.

9. We find that recording of reasons before the issue of notice under section 17 has absolutely no nexus with the assessment made. The Assessing Officer had no tangible material to come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income from the original assessment. The assessment made under sec. 16(3) has been wrongly reopened under sec. 17 beyond period of 4 years, as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts in the original assessment itself. The reopening was on wrong foundation of reasoning of the financial implication between the assessee-company and M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited, which was not established in the reassessment to justify the reopening.

10. Thus, there being no nexus or live-link with the reasons recorded and the ‘formation of belief’ to come to a conclusion that there was escapement of income and also since the assessment has been reopened beyond the period of 4 years when there is no failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts in the original assessment itself, and there being no tangible material for the reopening of the assessment, the CWT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, WTA.Nos.98 to 108/Hyd/2016 Smt. B. Appalanarasamma, Pet Bashirabad (v), Secunderabad & Others. hold that the reopening of the jurisdiction under section 17 is bad in law and is to be quashed.”

6. Consistent with the view taken therein, we hold that the reopening of assessments is bad in law. Since the Ld. CIT(A) had taken a similar view on this matter, we do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue herein are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.02.2017. Sd/- Sd/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (D.MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, Dated 27 th February, 2017. VBP/- Copy to

1. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Central Circle 3(1), 7 th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

2. Smt. B. Appalanarasamma, H.No.1-123/A, Satyam Enclave, NH-7, Pet Bashirabad (v), Secunderabad.

3. Shri B. Teja Raju, Plot No.1254A, Road No.63, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

4. Shri B. Rama Raju, (Jr.), Plot No.1254A, Road No.63, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

5. Shri B. Rama Raju, (Sr.), Plot No.1326, Road No.66, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

6. Shri B. Suryanarayana Raju (HUF), H.No.2-123/A, Satyam Enclave, NH-7, Pet Bashirabad (V), Secunderabad.

7. CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad.

8. Pr. CIT (Central), Hyderabad.

9. D.R. ITAT “B” Bench, Hyderabad.

10. Guard File.