9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (10) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wo valuers, one nominated by the appellant and the other by the respondent. It appears that they acted each on his own and filed separate reports regarding the value of the property; the valuer nominated by the revenue on March 15, 1970, fixing the value at Rs. 16,84,000 and the respondent's nominee on January 7, 1970, fixing the value at Rs. 14,12,700. It was pointed out to the valuers that they should act jointly, inspect the properties jointly and then give their opinion. The valuers thereafter acted in unison, inspected the properties and filed their report on October 6, 1970, fixing the value at Rs. 14,11,000, the two valuers agreeing to the value. When the appeal came up for hearing before the Tribunal on October 20, 1970, an objectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disposed of the appeal in terms of the values fixed by the valuers. Against the said order, an application was made by the revenue, and it was prayed that four questions may be, referred to this court. The Tribunal referred only two questions and those are the questions in T.C. No. 8 of 1973, which read thus : "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the valuation reports of the two valuers, dated October 6, 1970, and the subsequent letter dated March 10, 1971, stating that their earlier reports, dated October 6, 1970, need no revision or amendment can be considered and acted upon by the Appellate Tribunal with a view to pass an order in appeal in conformity therewith ? 2. Whether the Tribual was right in law in refusin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty shall be made unless the person affected thereby has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement. (6) Where the appellant objects to the valuation of any property, the Appellate Tribunal may, and if the appellant so requires, shall, refer the question of disputed value to the arbitration of two valuers, one of whom shall be nominated by the appellant and the other by the respondent, and the Tribunal shall, so far as that question is concerned, pass its orders under sub-section (5) conformably to the decision of the valuers : Provided that if there is a difference of opinion between the two valuers, the matter shall be referred to a third valuer nominated by agreement, or failing agreement, by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erence seems to have been made from an order passed, on application for certain procedure being adopted. That order by no means could be said to be an order disposing of the appeal under s. 63(5). That being so, there is no scope for making an application for reference and we consider the reference to be incompetent. We, accordingly, decline to answer the question raised in T.C. No. 274 of 1972. Now, turning to the first question in T.C. No. 8 of 1973, in the light of what we have said earlier in the judgment, the answer should be in the affirmative. We answer the question accordingly. The Tribunal could have acted on the report submitted by the valuers dated October 6, 1970, and that is what they did. This is correct. What we have said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
