1995 (8) TMI 88 - AT - Wealth-tax

Assessment Proceedings, Assessment Year, Original Assessment, Reference To Valuation Officer, Valuation Report

Summary

Issues:
Late filing of appeals by the department, valuation of property for wealth tax assessments, legality of reference to valuation officer after completion of original assessments, validity of reassessment proceedings based on valuation report.

Analysis:
1. Late Filing of Appeals: The department filed five appeals late by 12 days. The Tribunal, after perusing the condonation petition, found a reasonable cause for the delay and condoned it, admitting the appeals.

2. Valuation of Property: The case involved the assessment of an individual who, along with others, purchased a plot of land and constructed a residential house. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based on valuation reports, leading to disputes regarding the legality of the valuation process.

3. Legality of Reference to Valuation Officer: The assessee contended that the assessing officer acted without jurisdiction by referring the matter to the valuation officer after completing the original assessments. The Dy. CWT(A) held that the reassessment based on the valuation report was invalid as it constituted a change of opinion without any new material.

4. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings: The revenue argued that the valuation report provided new information to reopen assessments under section 17 of the Act. However, the Tribunal held that once assessments are complete, the assessing officer cannot refer the matter to the valuation officer, rendering the valuation report and reassessment proceedings invalid.

5. Judgment: The Tribunal dismissed all appeals, upholding the original assessments for the years in question. It ruled that the report of the valuation officer was non est in law, and the reassessments lacked jurisdiction as all material facts were disclosed during the original assessments, making any subsequent reassessment a mere change of opinion without legal basis. The Tribunal emphasized that the department cannot benefit from referring the matter to the valuation officer after completion of assessments, maintaining the integrity of the original assessments.