1986 (12) TMI 90 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Validity of the order passed by the Commissioner under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
3. Whether the valuation report should have been considered by the WTO before passing the order.
4. Interpretation of the term "records" in the context of assessing the correctness of the order.
5. Whether facts subsequent to the date of the assessment order can be considered in determining the correctness of the order.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeals were delayed by 16 days, and a petition for condonation of delay was filed. The Tribunal, after reviewing the reasons for the delay, decided to condone the delay and proceed with the appeals.

2. The appeals challenged the order passed by the Commissioner under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Commissioner set aside the original assessment orders, deeming them erroneous and prejudicial to revenue for not adopting the valuation figures provided by the Valuation Officer. The WTO had completed the assessments without waiting for the Valuation Officer's report, which was submitted later.

3. The main contention raised by the assessee was that the valuation report was not part of the records before the WTO passed the order. The department argued that once a reference is made to the Valuation Officer, the WTO is obligated to adopt the valuation figure provided. The Tribunal held that the Valuation Officer's report, received after the assessment order, cannot be considered part of the records for assessing the correctness of the order.

4. The Tribunal interpreted the term "records" to include only the materials available up to the date of the assessment order. Any material received thereafter, like the Valuation Officer's report, cannot be considered in determining the correctness of the order. The WTO's power to delay the assessment is limited by the statute, and reports received after the limitation date hold no value.

5. The Tribunal discussed whether facts subsequent to the assessment order can be considered in revisionary proceedings. While acknowledging that the law can be applied retroactively, they held that the Valuation Officer's report, received after the assessment order, cannot be considered part of the records for assessing the correctness of the order. The appeals were allowed based on these considerations.