9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of immovable property for assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76, and 1976-77; Failure to hear Departmental Valuer during appeal proceedings; Applicability of valuation accepted in one co-owner's case to other co-owners; Relevance of original assessment orders in light of reassessment by the Department.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT GAUHATI, the appeals were heard together concerning the valuation of an immovable property for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76, and 1976-77. The co-owners of the property, including the appellants, had their property valued by a Departmental Valuer during assessment proceedings. However, during the appeal process, the Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax (AAC) failed to hear the Departmental Valuer, which was deemed a vital irregularity. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AAC for one of the co-owners for the mentioned assessment years. Regarding another co-owner, the Tribunal noted that the AAC had adopted the valuation based on the previous order for a different co-owner, which was now set aside. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of justice and decided to set aside the appellate order for this co-owner as well, allowing for a re-determination of the valuation along with other co-owners. A key argument raised was whether the valuation accepted in one co-owner's case should automatically apply to other co-owners. The counsel for the assessee cited a decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, stating that the valuation accepted for one co-sharer should bind others. However, the Department representative highlighted that reassessments were initiated for all co-owners due to alleged undervaluation, undermining the reliance on original assessment orders. The Tribunal rejected the argument that original assessment orders could be used as evidence, as they had been questioned by the WTO, leading to reassessments. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the AAC's order for the other co-owner as well, directing a re-determination of the valuation in conjunction with the other co-owners. Ultimately, the appeals were rejected for statistical purposes.
|
