TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose of four appeals since all the appeals are admitted on the following two common substantial questions of law: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that where the assessee's figures are supported by valuation report of registered valuer and the Wealth-tax Officer has not made a reference to the valuation cell, then the assessee's figures are required to be accepted? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sale consideration of plot 'A' would not be relevant for the purpose of determining the valuation of the adjoining plot, i.e., 'B' vis-a-vis the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion which arises for consideration is whether it is mandatory for the Wealth-tax Officer to obtain the report of the Valuation Officer or he can make the valuation of the property on his own estimation. 7. Section 16A(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, reads as follows "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, where under the provisions of section 7 read with the rules made under this Act, or, as the case may be, the rules in Schedule III, the market value of any asset is to be taken into account in such assessment, the Assessing Officer may refer the valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the Valuation Officer." 11. The Delhi High Court also referred to the circular in the aforesaid judgment and held that the Revenue could not contend that the provisions of section 16A are not mandatory. Similar view has been taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Raj Paul Oswal v. CWT [1988] 171 ITR 489, wherein it held as follows (page 493) "In our view, there is no merit in the stand taken on behalf of the Revenue. In our view, the provisions of section 16A(1), clause (b), when read with rule 3B, ibid, mandatorily require the Wealth-tax Officer to make a reference." 12. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in CWT v. L. N. Ahuja [2000] 159 Taxation 446 (Delhi). It is obvious that the legislati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
