TMI Blog1993 (12) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct to the Departmental Valuation Officer on May 20, 1975, for valuation of immovable property (Gems Cinema) owned by the firm, Messrs. Maniram and Sons, for the relevant assessment years 1971-72 and 1974-75. The valuer submitted his report on April 30, 1976, determining the value at Rs. 15,45,000 and Rs. 20,20,000 as on Diwali, 1970, and Diwali, 1973, respectively. The Wealth-tax Officer issued notice for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 for escaped assessment under section 17(1)(b). The reassessment order was accordingly framed. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax, relying upon the decision of this court in the case of Brig. B. Lall v. WTO [1981] 127 ITR 308, held that the power to refer the question of va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any assessment, for the purpose of which he wants to check up from the Valuation Officer, the correctness of the valuation of the assets disclosed by the assessee in the return and which, according to him, are undervalued, looking to the fair market value or as per the standards laid down in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1)." In CWT v. Master Kairas Tarapore [1987] 163 ITR 311, this court had held that the reference under section 16A, after completion of assessment, is without jurisdiction and is not valid. In Brig. B. Lall v. WTO [1981] 127 ITR 308, it was held that the Valuation Officer's report under section 16A could not form the basis for reassessment proceedings. Similarly, in Sardar Kehar Singh v. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 769 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then no reference to the Valuation Officer can be made under section 16A. If there is no information as contemplated by section 17(1)(b), then there could not be valid initiation of proceedings. In the present matter, since the assessments of the above two partners/assessees had already been completed, the reference by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 16A for valuing the property of the firm, Messrs. Maniram and Sons, in respect of Gem Cinema, cannot be considered to have given any right for reopening the completed assessments. Accordingly, it is held that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Wealth-tax Officer did not have jurisdiction to initiate the reassessment proceedings and in cancelling the assessments made under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
