TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of framing the assessment and the Assessing Officer was required to have knowledge of the same?" In the present case, the question involved is with regard to the valuation of the property situate at 39, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. This property is an industrial unit and, before the Assessing Officer, a valuation report prepared by a registered valuer had been furnished by the assessee. The Wealth-tax Officer accepted the report of the registered valuer and computed the net wealth of the assessee. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax then instituted proceedings under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. He came to the conclusion that the Wealth-tax Officer did not take into consideration the fact that a letter dated June 27, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner was fully justified in exercising his jurisdiction under section 25(2) and when he came to the conclusion that the order of the Wealth-tax Officer should be set aside, the Tribunal ought not to have quashed the order of the Commissioner. It is true that ordinarily the Commissioner has been given jurisdiction to examine, under section 25(2), whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, but in the instant case, however, the Commissioner has nowhere formed an opinion that the assessment order was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Apart from that jurisdictional infirmity, the Commissioner overlooked the fact that the rate of Rs. 1,800 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land arrived at by the first valuer was far in excess of that of the other valuer. Though the first valuer had taken the rate to be Rs. 140 per square yard, he had applied that rate to the entire 4,696 square yards of land and determined the valuation of the land at Rs. 6,57,300. The other valuer, on whose report, reliance was sought to be placed by the Commissioner, had valued only 1,335.46 square metres of land at Rs. 200 per square metre, whereas the remaining 2,378.52 square metres of land has been valued at Rs. 10 per square metre and the total valuation of the land has been determined by the second valuer at Rs. 2,90,877.20. The Wealth-tax Officer having accepted the valuation of the first valuer, who had determined the land price at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
