1993 (3) TMI 144 - AT - Wealth-tax

Assessing Officer, Immovable Property, Movable Property, Valuation Officer, Valuation Report

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of disallowance claimed as deduction in computing net wealth.
2. Setting aside assessment in respect of valuation of properties.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of disallowance claimed as deduction in computing net wealth
The Appellate Tribunal, in the revenue's appeal for the assessment year 1983-84, addressed the issue of the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 12,87,600 claimed as a deduction in computing the net wealth of the assessee. The CWT (Appeals) had directed the Assessing Officer to deduct the amount based on previous orders and the Cochin Bench of ITAT's decision in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1978-79. Given the similarity in facts, the Tribunal upheld the findings of the CWT (Appeals) in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2: Setting aside assessment in respect of valuation of properties
Another issue involved the CWT (Appeals) setting aside the assessment concerning the valuation of 16 items of properties as per the Valuation Officer's report. The Tribunal noted that at the time of assessment, neither the Assessing Officer nor the assessee had the detailed valuation report for the properties. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not receive the detailed valuation report until after the assessment was completed. As a result, the Tribunal agreed with the CWT (Appeals) that the assessment should be set aside to allow the assessee an opportunity to effectively defend against the valuation. The revenue contended that the Assessing Officer was bound by the value determined by the Valuation Officer under section 16A(6) of the Wealth-tax Act. However, the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that the Valuation Officer's order should be a speaking order, which was not the case in this instance. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CWT (Appeals) decision to set aside the assessment and directed a reassessment to be conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Act.

In conclusion, ITA No. 335/Coch/91 was treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes, while ITA No. 345/Coch/91 was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.