Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1979 (1) TMI 129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppeal was neither before the Appellate CED. That being the position, we are not inclined to admit this ground of appeal in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurjar gravures P. Ltd(1). 4. The ground No.2 relates to valuation of the deceased's house property at 5-Gokhale Road, Calcutta. The accountable person has returned the value of this property at Rs. 4 Lakhs. The Asst. CED on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuer estimated the value of this property at Rs. 5,49,000 which was confirmed by the Appellate Controller on appeal. 5. In the further appeal before us the learned counsel for the accountable person contended that the returned value on this property was based on the approved valuer's report. He .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ituated outside the town and was not a part of the palace. 8. Before us the leaned counsel for the assessee reiterated the same contentions as advanced before the lower authorities while the learned Departmental Representative furnished before us a copy of the valuation report of Sri D.L. Bhowmik, Valuation Officer-1, Bhubaneswar to show that the Kunja Kanta House was situated at Kunja Kanta area, Dhenkanal on the top of a hill inside the N.A.C. area but at the ourskirt of the town. 9. We are, therefore, satisfied that the house in question was not a part of the palace and, therefore, the lower authorities were justified in disallowing the accountable person's claim for exemption in respect of this house. 10. The next contention relat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mises were tenanted one, income of which was assessed in the hands of the deceased during his life time. 14. We do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the accountable person. No evidence could be produced before us to show that the premises at holding No.845 and 845 A B in Tulsipur are, Cuttack were a single unit of building more so when the buildings were marked with different holding numbers. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the Appellate Controller on this point. 15. The next grievance is against disallowance of accountable person's claim for exemption of the value in respect of vacant land attached to Tulsipur buildings. 16. We see that we have vacated the order of the Appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... firmed by the Appellate Controller since he was of the opinion that the valuation was made as per WT Rules. 21. Before us the learned counsel for the accountable person contended that the shares in question were not quoted shares. Therefore, he submitted that the valuation of the same should have been made as per r. 1-D of the WT Rules. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. We have seen the method applied by the lower authorities for valuation of these unquoted shares and we are satisfied that the valuation was not made as per r. 1-D of the WT Rules. We, therefore, vacate the orders of the lower authorities on this point and restore the point to the Asst. CED for re-doing the same in accord .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sset while filing wealth tax returns. He urged that there was nothing to show that the amount in question became bad in 1964 after the death of Banwarilal Ray. 28. The claim of the accountable person from the very beginning was that after the death of Banwarilal Ray, the debtor, none of his legal heirs was traceable. We were told that no portion of this amount was recovered by the accountable person of the deceased even to-day. In that view of the matter, we hold that the amount of Rs. 85,000 had already become barred in 1964 on the death of the debtor Sri Banwarilal Ray. We therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 85,000. 29. The ground of appeal against valuation of Jewellery had not been pressed by the learned counsel for the accountabl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates