TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to produce certain documents in order to enable him to determine the fair market value of the aforesaid house as on March 31, 1974 and onwards till March 31, 1982, which, by annexure-5 was modified as March 31, 1979, and onwards till March 31, 1983, under section 16A(1) of the Wealth-tax Act (for short "the Act"). The aforesaid letters were issued under the direction of the Wealth-tax Officer (respondent No. 1) for determination of the fair market value of the aforesaid house in respect of the period mentioned in annexure-5 for the assessment of wealth-tax to be paid by the petitioner. The petitioner has also impugned the notice dated February 10, 1984, issued by respondent No. 2 to him whereby he was asked to produce books of account a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion must be an asset. (b) The reference must be for the purpose of making an assessment. (c) The Wealth-tax Officer must have formed the requisite opinion before making the reference and the opinion of the Wealth-tax Officer should be objective and not merely subjective. In other words, according to the petitioner, the Wealth-tax Officer must state reasons for referring the matter of valuation to the Valuation Officer which, according to the petitioner, is lacking in this case. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the reference to the Valuation Officer must be for the purpose of making an assessment and in the present case, the asset being a self-occupied residential house of the petitioner, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are pending before the Wealth-tax Officer and by annexure 5, respondent No. 2 was asked to value the house in question as on March 31, 1979, to March 31, 1983. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he filed several petitions before respondent No. 2 to decide the validity of the reference made by respondent No. 1 to him but he did not decide it and asked the petitioner to produce the books of account and other papers by annexure 11 failing which a fine up to Rs. 500 was to be imposed on the petitioner under section 37(2) of the Act, as according to him, the reference is entirely illegal and void ab initio. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, has further submitted that the petitioner has challenged the right of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essary to do so." It has already been mentioned in paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit sworn by the Wealth-tax Officer that additions have also been made to the house. It has also been admitted by Mr. Jain that in the case of additions, the Wealth-tax Officer has got a right to make a reference to the Valuation Officer in order to make an assessment with regard to the asset. In the present case, further additions to the house alleged to have been made by the petitioner prompted the Wealth-tax Officer to make a reference to the Valuation Officer to value the house. Though Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has admitted that in the case of additions, reference can be made by the Wealth-tax Officer to the Valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the Wealth-tax Officer, while passing an order under section 16A does so on formation of the requisite opinion only to secure an estimate regarding valuation from statutory expert. The reference to the Valuation Officer has no adjudicatory element involved in it and of its own, it can have no adverse effect on the assessee concerned. The procedure to be followed by the Valuation Officer is as elaborate as can be expected of any judicial proceeding. On material and evidence produced by the assessee, the Valuation Officer is absolutely free, in spite of the opinion of the Wealth-tax Officer, to return a finding that the valuation disclosed in the return filed by the assessee is correct. It has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation Officer and still he proceeded with the matter and ultimately took steps and issued summons (annexure 11) under section 37(2) of the Act. I do not find any substance in this submission as lie is not the competent authority to decide the validity or otherwise of the reference made by the Wealth-tax Officer who is a superior Officer. On a reference being made, he has to perform his Statutory duties as provided by law. There is no provision in the Act which empowers the Valuation Officer to decide the validity or otherwise of the reference made to him by the Wealth-tax Officer. On consideration of the facts and circumstances and also the law involved in the case, I am of the opinion that there is no substance in this application and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
