9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Validity of re-opening of assessment based on approved valuer's report.
In this case, the issue at hand was the validity of the re-opening of the assessment based on an approved valuer's report regarding a gift of 22 acres of agricultural land containing rubber trees. The assessee voluntarily declared a taxable gift of Rs. 22,000, but the GTO valued the property at Rs. 66,000 during the original assessment. Subsequently, the GTO re-opened the assessment under s. 16(b) based on the valuer's report, which valued the gifted properties higher than the original assessment. The AAC held that the valuer's report did not constitute new information under s. 16(b) but rather a change of opinion by the GTO, leading to the cancellation of the reassessment as invalid. The Department contended that the valuer's report should be considered as new information under s. 16(1)(b) and cited relevant case law, including the Supreme Court decision in A.N. Lakshman Shenoy vs. ITO and the Kerala High Court decision in Glen Leven Estates Ltd. vs. ITO. They argued that the AAC's interpretation was incorrect in law. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of s. 16(1)(b) and noted that the GTO's valuation of the property was based on his opinion, considering the evidence before him. The Tribunal emphasized that a valuation report by an approved valuer is merely an opinion and cannot be considered as new information. The GTO cannot change the assessment figures based on a change in opinion, as per s. 16(1)(b). Therefore, the Tribunal agreed with the AAC that the reassessment proceedings were invalid. The Departmental Representative referred to the Supreme Court decision in A.N. Lakshman Shenoy vs. ITO, highlighting that the term 'information' must be specific and relevant to the assessment. They argued that if the gifted properties were subsequently sold for a higher value, that would constitute new information for the reassessment to be valid. However, without such concrete information, the reassessment could not be upheld. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Departmental appeal, upholding the AAC's decision that the reassessment based on the valuer's report was invalid under s. 16(1)(b) as it amounted to a change in the GTO's opinion rather than new information justifying reassessment.
|
