9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain to different assessment years, but the issue in both the appeals are identical and ld.CWT(A) has also passed a consolidated order. It was, therefore, submitted that the arguments made by them in case of one appeal would be applicable to the other appeal also. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we for the sake of convenience, proceed to dispose of both the appeals by a consolidated order and thus proceed with facts for AY 1990-91. 2.1. Assessee filed his return of wealth for AY 1990-91 on 22/03/1994 declaring taxable wealth of Rs. 8,32,636/-. Assessment was thereafter framed u/s.16(3) of WT Act vide order dated 2/3/1993 and the total taxable wealth was determined at Rs. 60,31,200/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, matter was carried be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CWT(A), matter was carried by Revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 20/06/2008, for assessment years AY 1990-91 & 1991-92, restored the issue to the file of ld.CWT(A) to dispose of appeals afresh as per the directions given therein. Consequent to the directions of Tribunal, ld.CWT(A) vide order dated 21/03/2014 allowed both the appeals for 1990-91 & 1991-92. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CWT(A), the Revenue is now appeal. 3. Before us, ld.DR supported the order of AO. On the other hand, ld.AR reiterated the submissions made before the AO & CWT(A) and supported the order of CWT(A). 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that during the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh adjudication after giving due opportunities. Accordingly the DVO as well as the appellant was given an opportunity and as discussed in the preceding paragraphs the objections of the valuation officer have been obtained. It is noted from the facts that the DVO has determined the valuation of the property as per his repor dated 01/05/1991 as on 31/03/1987, 31/03/1988, 31/03/1989 and 31/03/1990. It is noted that the DVO has estimated the valuation as on 31/03/1987 and increased the same by 10% for the subsequent three years. The appellant on the other hand had given an estimate which was at variance with the estimate given by the DVO. The appellant has submitted that the first proposed initial estimate given by the DVO to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tud Farm. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to consider the values of this property land and structure as under. A. AY. 1987-88 Rs.19,01,100/- B. AY.1988-89 Rs.19,87,600/- C. AY. 1989-90 Rs.20,79,600/- It is noted that the honourable ITAT has accepted the findings given by the CWT (A) in Para No.6 of the above referred order and had declined to interfere in the findings given by CWT(A). Since, the Hon. ITAT has confirmed the valuation as per appellant's valuer report of Shri M. G. Patel for the A. Y. 1987-88 to 1989-90, and the present assessment is also based on the same valuation report of the DVO which has not been accepted by the honourable ITAT, the issue of valuation of Stud Farm is covered by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
