TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-76, its valuation dates were the last day of the samvat year and these were 9-11-1969, 30-10-1970, 19-10-1971, 5-11-1972, 26-10-1973 and 13-11-1974. Up to the assessment year 1971-72 it was owning both immovable properties and movable properties. The movable properties as is seen from the papers included in the assessee's paper book were two cash deposits lying with two firms---one of Rs. 1,40,050 with Manganlal Brothers (P.) Ltd. and the other of Rs. 10,664 with Magindas Industries. It was the claim of the assessee that both these movable properties had been divided amongst the members of the HUF on 30-11-1970, a date which will fall in the wealth-tax assessment year 1972-73. The assessee had duly intimated the WTO about the partition by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e conclusion in para 5 that the reports of the registered valuers were at variance and inconsistent in respect of the same properties and the basis of valuation adopted was not uniform, nor linked firmly to accept principles of valuation. In para 6, he noted the assessee's plea that it had claimed a partial partition of the movable assets on 30-11-1970 and lodged a claim with the concerned ITO and the ITO, it seemed, had not passed any order on the said application. In para 7, the Commissioner observed that apart from the aforesaid omission of movable assets, a careful examination of the valuers' reports would have revealed to the WTO that the valuation of the different immovable properties was faulty and unacceptable for a proper assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O to be erroneous, it may be pointed out at the outset that the Commissioner had no material available to him to show as to what was the fair market value of those properties and how the value shown by the assessee on the basis of reports of the registered approved valuers, which was accepted by the WTO, was wrong. Without establishing that fundamental requirement, we fail to understand how the Commissioner could attribute an error to the WTO merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Before an error could be attributed to the WTO within the meaning of section 25, the Commissioner on the basis of proper material as envisaged in that section should be in a position to point out an error in fact. The approach adopted by the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his criticism about different approaches of the different valuers is incorrect and put in wrong factual perspective. It was pointed out by the assessee's authorised representative with the help of a chart that three different valuers had valued the assessee's immovable properties in different assessment years and not that the same properties were valued differently by different valuers on the same valuation dates. It was stated that for the assessment year 1970-71 certain properties were valued by Shri B.O. Lalaji, for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1974-75 valuation of those properties was made by another valuer, Shri C.C. Gandhi, and finally for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1978-79 the properties were valued by the valuer Shri J.H. Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Commissioner runs counter to the clear provisions of section 16A. This direction could also be operative only if a proper opinion could be formed that the value shown by the registered valuers was less than the fair market value of the property in the opinion of the WTO. There must be data, therefore, to show what is the fair market value of the concerned property, before section 16A can be taken recourse to. It is not that mechanically references can be made to the departmental Valuation Officer brushing aside the valuation made by the registered approved valuers. 6. The view we have taken in this case is similar to the view taken by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in a case which according to us had stronger facts than the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue estimated by the assessee's approved valuers. 7. In conclusion, we are satisfied that in the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Commissioner had failed to establish any error in the valuation of immovable properties and, hence, his order setting aside the assessments for that reason is unsustainable. 8. The next question is about the WTO omitting to deal with the claim of partial partition of movable assets. The assessee heavily relied on the intimation filed with the WTO on 11-2-1971 and contended that the WTO impliedly took note of the partition. We are unable to accept that argument. It is a question of fact whether the WTO had applied his mind to the question of partial partition of movable assets or not. It appears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
