9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the assessee and made certain adjustments. On examination of the case records, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax found that the value of the properties which were received on partial partition was Rs. 16,32,800 and Rs. 19,23,800 for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71, respectively. In view of the appreciation of the value of real estate during the period 1967 to 1974 there was no justification on the part of the Wealth-tax Officer to accept the valuation as disclosed by the assessee which was on the face of it on a much lower side. He further noticed that the Wealth-tax Officer had made a reference to the District Valuation Officer for valuation of these properties but without waiting for the report of the Valuation Officer, the We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal that when the Wealth-tax Officer had made enquiries on his own and had determined the fair market value of the properties in question the Commissioner could not exercise jurisdiction under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in the instant case is correct in law and sustainable from the material on record? 3. Whether the findings of the Tribunal that on account of the challenge of the valuation in the case of bigger Hindu undivided family no reliance can be placed on the said valuation and prima facie it could not be said that the valuation as adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue is correct in law? 4. Whether the Tribunal has not erred in law and on facts in setting aside the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ising the same, determined the value of the properties in question. Still, however, the Tribunal has held that the order of the Wealth-tax Officer for the assessment year 1976-77 was not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Mr. Naik has vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has substantially erred in law in not considering that when the very basis of the valuation of the same properties in question was found to be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the assessment year 1975-76, mere capitalisation of the renovation charges and addition of the same to the base value of the properties in question does not mean that the value of the properties in question was correctly determined for the assessment year 1976-77. We find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75-76, the Wealth-tax Officer had determined the fair market value of the two properties in question on his own by capitalising the renovation charges which were incurred by the assessee and by holding that the renovation expenses would go to increase the value of the properties in question. Thus for the assessment year 1976-77 though the Wealth-tax Officer had made the reference to the District Valuation Officer and his report was awaited the Wealth-tax Officer did apply his mind to the valuation as disclosed by the assessee and had made certain adjustments and additions in order to determine the fair market value of the two properties." The Tribunal, thus, clearly overlooked the fact that the so-called fresh or independent determination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
