9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of issuing notices under section 269D(2)(a) before publication of notice under section 269D(1) in the Official Gazette. 2. Legality and validity of determination of fair market value by the Tribunal and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Analysis: Issue 1: The first issue raised was whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction was affected by issuing notices under section 269D(2)(a) before the publication of the notice under section 269D(1) in the Official Gazette. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in allowing the belated additional ground and argued against it. The court referred to a previous case and held that the Tribunal's decision was erroneous, ruling in favor of the appellant. Issue 2: Regarding the determination of fair market value, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner initiated proceedings under Chapter XX-A of the Act based on the transfer of property to two separate individuals by joint owners. The Tribunal, in reversing the Commissioner's order, did not consider the separate valuation of the properties, leading to an error in law. The Tribunal also ignored the importance of the locality in determining fair market value, which is essential. Furthermore, the Tribunal's exclusion of other properties from consideration due to lack of acquisition proceedings was deemed illegal. The court found these errors and remitted the case to the Commissioner for fresh disposal, emphasizing the correct legal principles of valuation. The parties were allowed to present further evidence, and the Tribunal's decision was set aside. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Tribunal and Commissioner's orders, and remitted the cases for redetermination in accordance with the correct legal principles of valuation. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the circumstances of the cases.
|
