9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2027 and 2029, respectively. 3. The assessee, along with another person, owns a property at Suryapur Mills Compound, Varachha Road, Surat, having half share therein. At this stage, it would be necessary to tabulate the valuation of the said half share shown by the assessee and that estimated by the WTO : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assessment Per assessee Per WTO year ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Original Revised 1st 2nd (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is report dated 21-3-1980 valuing the assessee's share in the property in question as indicated in column No. 4 above. Thereafter, the WTO framed fresh assessments on 31-3-1980, adopting the value of the assessee's share in the property in question as shown by the assessee in its revised returns instead of adopting the valuation made by the DVO vide his second report dated 21-3-1980. Simultaneously, he initiated the proceedings under section 18(1)(c)/18(2) and called upon the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be imposed under section 18(1)(c) for the variation in the value shown by the assessee in its original returns and that shown in the revised returns. 4. On 17-5-1980, the assessee, inter alia, stated as under : " (b) With ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 26,200, Rs. 42,850, Rs. 84,100 and Rs. 2,47,500, respectively, for the years under consideration. 6. In appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee contended that on the facts and in the circumstances obtaining in its case, no penalty could have been imposed under section 18(1)(c) inasmuch as the variation in the valuation of the property in question was due to honest difference of opinion between the assessee's valuer and that of the DVO. It was also highlighted before the Commissioner (Appeals) that in the second report of the DVO, the valuation of the assessee's share in the property in question was lower than what the assessee had shown in its revised return. It was, therefore, urged that penalty imposed under section 18(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the WTO and urged that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in cancelling the penalties imposed under section 18(1)(c). He, therefore, submitted that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) should be set aside and that of the WTO should be restored. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In this connection, he once again highlighted the fact that in the second report of the DVO, the value of the assessee's share in the property in question was estimated at a figure lower than what the assessee had declared in the revised returns filed on 8-10-1975. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of D. V. Patel & Co. v. CIT [1975] 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
