TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty was 31.5 grounds. By an agreement dated 23-4-1972 and a supplementary agreement dated 15-5-1974 the assessee agreed to sell the property to Mr. P.N. Arumugam of M/s. Seven Hills Real Estate, No. 14, Davidson Street, Madras. Pursuant to the agreement Mr. Arumugam was delivered possession of a portion of the property. Ultimately there was a dispute with regard to the said dealing and the matter went to the High Court of Madras. Subsequently the litigation was compromised in terms of the Memo of compromise passed by the High Court on 28-11-1992. In terms of the said compromise the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 21 lakhs to M/s. Seven Hills Real Estate who shall not claim any interest whatsoever in the disputed property. It appears that the firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... departmental valuer. The letter is quoted below : " In the proceedings of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax cited, your assessment for the asst. year 1983-84 requires revision. In this connection you are requested to produce before me the copy of valuation report of the Departmental valuer valuing 31.5 grounds at No. 5, Greams Road, Madras-6 for Rs. 55.86 lakhs to enable me to revise the assessment in accordance with the direction of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax. Your case is posted for hearing at my office on 20-3-90 at 11 A.M. " The assessee replied to the said letter that the valuation report referred to in the letter under reply is in relation to M/s. Seven Hills Real Estate and the assessee has nothing to do with that report and n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Ghatala, 19---Greams Rd., Madras--34 --- Asst. year 1983-84 --- revision-reg. Order u/s 25(2) of Wealth-tax Act Consequent to the direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax's order in C. No. 1244/11(13)/89 dt. 9-3-90 the original assessment made on 28-3-90 is revised as under : Total wealth as per original order dt. 20-3-88 Rs. 9,98,662. Add : The difference between the value has been taken and already assessed for the property at No. 5, Greams Road, Madras (21 and 2835 sq. ft.) Rs. 38,74,360 --- Rs. 3,64,094 Rs. 35,10,266 --------------------------- Rs. 45,08,918 Less: Wealth-tax liability Rs. 1,70,662 ----------------------------- Rs. 44,38,256 or Rs. 44,38,300 ------------------------------ Wealth-tax Rs. 1,70, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n reply to the said letter the assessee submitted that she was not in a position to furnish any valuation report because that valuation report related to M/s. Seven Hills Real Estate. Therefore on the basis of that valuation report the valuation of the assessee's property cannot be enhanced by an order of revision. The assessee was not afforded any opportunity of being heard under section 16A(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, which was mandatory in nature. It was further submitted that on behalf of the assessee submissions were made before the first appellate authority in this regard, but the Commissioner (Appeals) did not make any comment on those issues in passing his order. On the other hand the departmental representative has submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unity of being heard to the assessee. Section 16A provides the procedure for reference to the Valuation Officer. According to sub-section (1) the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of any asset to the Valuation Officer under some circumstances. Sub-section (4) of section 16A provides that where the Valuation Officer is of opinion that the value of asset is higher than the value declared in the return by the assessee or disclosed by the assessee, in that case the Valuation Officer shall serve notice on the assessee intimating the value which he proposed to estimate and giving the assessee an opportunity to state his objections or to produce evidence in support of his objections. The aforesaid provision is mandatory in nature. For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Valuation Officer. During the process of estimating the valuation of the property by the Valuation Officer no notice to show cause was issued to the assessee under section 16A(4) of the Wealth-tax Act. On the other hand pursuant to the revisional order at the time of framing fresh assessment the Assessing Officer asked for the valuation report from the assessee and the assessee in her reply stated her inability to supply the same because no reference was made by the Assessing Officer to the Valuation Officer in her case. From the impugned order we find that all these objections were raised by the assessee before the first appellate authority, but the Commissioner (Appeals) did not record any finding on those issues. The first appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
