TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion officer and at Rs. 10,64,612 and Rs. 12,24,303 respectively for the property at 30/1A after taking into account appreciation over the value determined in the appellate order for the immediately preceding year. However, the CWT noted that for the subsequent asst. yr. 1984-85, the Valuation Officer had determined the value of these properties at Rs. 19.34 lakhs and Rs. 25.71 lakhs respectively and held that in comparison the values shown and accepted in the assessments were unreasonably low and should be considered to be erroneous. He accordingly set aside the assessments and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the value taking into account the valuation report given for the valuation date 31st March, 1984. 3. The assessees are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r findings of fact considered perverse in the legal sense, i.e., based on no evidence or taking into account irrelevant evidence or ignoring relevant evidence. This is not a case where there is any irregularity in the sense of a hasty assessment or imputing of mala fides on the WTO which could vitiate the assessments. Nor is this a case where any erroneous proposition of law had been applied to the facts. What we have is only a finding of fact, i.e., the valuation of a property. That valuation could be made by different methods, such as comparison with sales of similar properties the land and building method, the capitalisation of yield method, etc. Whatever method is used relevant material has to be taken into consideration. This is not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ist at the time the assessment was made. 7. There is another aspect of this matter, viz., that the valuation, though a question of fact, is also a matter of opinion. As noted above, several methods may be employed for determining the value. The choice of a particular method and thereby determination of the value is a matter of judicial discretion. The powers of revision under s. 25(2) do not vest in the Commissioner the power to interfere with such judicial discretion because it is not in the nature of an appellate power. It is not possible for the Commissioner to say that on an appraisal of the material or by application of a different method he could determine the value at a higher figure and consequently the determination of the valuat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-tax administration as a whole. Sec. 263 is to be invoked not as a jurisdictional corrective as a review of a subordinate's order in exercise of the supervisory power but it is to be invoked and employed only for the purpose of setting right distortions and prejudices to the Revenue which is a unique conception which has to be understood in the context of and in the interest of Revenue administration. Such a power cannot in any manner be equated to or regarded as approaching in any way the appellate jurisdiction or even the ordinary revisional jurisdiction conferred on the Commissioner under s. 264." 8. In the present case factually the valuation of the first property was based on the valuation Officer's report which was binding on the W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
