TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1967-68, she furnished to the ITO concerned, who is a the WTO concerned, being respondent No. 1, the details of the cost of construction of the building, along with a valuation report dated 21st November, 1968, from M/s. J. Ganguli Co., an approved valuer of this court. It has been stated that in the I.T. assessment for the assessment year 1969-70, the officer concerned assessed the petitioner on the difference between the cost of construction as mentioned hereinbefore and the valuation as made by the approved valuer. The difference as mentioned above was found to be Rs. 48,182 and, on appeal, such determination and the assessment as made, was set aside. It would appear that for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1972-73, the petitioner filed before the appropriate officer, the said valuation report dated 21st November, 1968, and the officer concerned referred the matter of valuation of the property to the valuation cell of the I.T. dept. for the purpose of assessment of the petitioner. The Valuation Officer concerned, by his report dated 20th July, 1972, valued the said premises for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1966-67. The petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y a reference dated 2nd January, 1976, had referred the question of determination of the fair market value of the said premises and the structure, for the purpose of the said Act under s. 16A. The said section was incorporated with effect from 1st January, 1973, by the T.L. (Amend.) Act, 1972 (45 of 1972), and deals with reference to the Valuation Officer. The terms of that section are quoted as under : Section 16A Reference to Valuation Officer.-(1) For the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment in respect of any assessment year commencing before the date of coming into force of this section) under this Act, the Wealth-tax Officer may refer the valuation of any asset to a Valuation Officer (a) in a case where the value of the asset as returned is in accordance with the estimate made by a registered valuer, if the Wealth-tax officer is of opinion that the value so returned is less than its fair market value ; (b) in any other case, if the Wealth-tax Officer is of opinion (i) that the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value of the asset as returned by more than such percentage of the value of the asset as returned or by more than such amount as may b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner that since her assessment for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73, under the said Act, were already made and completed prior to the date of issuance of the notice, as impeached, there was or could be no purpose whatsoever in asking for the valuation to be made of the property, in question under s. 16A of the said Act as on 31st March, 1969, 31st March, 1970, 31st March, 1971, and 31st March, 1972. It was contended that the concerned reference, as made, and that too for the periods, as mentioned, was wrongful, without jurisdiction, illegal and void. In fact, it was claimed that such reference was resorted to not only on irrelevant and extraneous considerations but also with the ulterior motive to have a fresh valuation done and then to reopen proceedings against the petitioner on such evidence. The petitioner, without prejudice and under protest, co-operated with the Valuation Officer concerned in the matter of valuation of the property in question and has stated that she has furnished the requisite information and details, as were asked for and necessary. She has stated also that she has brought to the notice of the said officer, the valuation as made by her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also contended that as, up to the date of the impugned notice dated 12th January, 1976, no assessment or reassessment proceeding against the petitioner was pending under the said Act for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73, the respondent concerned had also no competence or jurisdiction and authority under the said Act, to revalue the fair market value of the property in question as on 31st March, 1969, 31st March, 1970, 31st March, 1971, and 31st March, 1972, relevant for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73. It was claimed by the petitioner that there was no, or could be any, reason and purpose whatever under the said Act, for such revaluation, as was sought to be made and in fact, such revaluation was not required or necessary for the subsequent assessment years 1973-74 and onwards. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner all throughout claimed that such revaluation was sought to be made for reasons which were anything but real. It was specifically contended that a reference under s., 16A of the said Act, by the officer concerned, could be made only in respect of and for the purpose of making and completing a pending assessment under the said Act, or only in respect of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his jurisdiction or in abuse of the same in the instant case The above submissions were made, basing them mainly on the opening phrase " for the purpose of making an assessment " as in s. 16A(1). In support of his submissions, Mr. Murarka referred to the determinations in the case of Brig. B. Lall v. WTO [1981] 127 ITR 308 (Rai). In that case, reassessment proceedings were started against the assessee for the years 1969-70 to 1973-74, based, some on audit objection and some others on the report under s. 16A of the Valuation Officer, who had valued the property as on April 1, 1974. The assessees had in the original assessment proceedings submitted reports by approved valuers for each of the years under consideration and the assessments bad been made after notice to the assessee and discussion with the authorised representative. Writ petitions were filed to quash the notices for reassessment. The department did not produce the report of the Valuation Officer or the audit objection and it has been observed that s. 16A was not introduced in the W.T. Act, 1957, in isolation but it was part of the entire scheme of amendments which associated the Valuation Officer with the valuation of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applied for all the years under consideration. A bald reference to audit objections would not be sufficient and could not form the basis for reassessment proceedings. The reassessment proceedings had not been validly initiated and the notices were liable to be quashed. A taxing statute always receives strict interpretation. There is no room for intendment in a taxation law. The court cannot read into a taxing provision any words which "are not there or exclude words which are there. In support of his submissions as aforesaid, Mr. Murarka also referred to the observations of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore in the case of Onkarji Kusturchand v. WTO--since reported in [1982] 135 ITR 188 (MP). Apart from producing the report, Mr. Murarka also produced the xerox copy of the said determinations, as the said report is not easily available. In that case, for the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee filed his return of net wealth but before the filing of the same, a reference was made by the WTO on 12th December, 1977, under s. 16A regarding the valuation of " Smriti Talkies " owned by the assessee. The petitioner filed a petition under art. 226 of the Constitution before the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in any case at his discretion. But on such amendment as incorporated distinction has been made between the case in which the valuation is based on the estimate of a registered valuer and the cases in which it is not so based. So, under the present provisions, in cases where the value of the asset has been estimated by a registered valuer, reference may be made to the Valuation Officer if the WTO considers that the estimate by the registered valuer requires an upward revision, i. e., where the value returned after estimation by the registered valuer is less than its market value. In any other case, such a reference may be made, if the officer concerned considers it necessary to do so on account of the nature of the assets and other relevant circumstances or if he is of the view that the fair market value of the assets exceeds the value of the assets as returned by more than such percentage of the value of the assets as returned or by more than such amount as may be prescribed in this behalf. The above power of the officer concerned in the matter of making reference to a Valuation Officer could be exercised only when the assessment of the assessee would be pending or is pending be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
