2018 (6) TMI 1287 - AT - Wealth-tax

Maintainability of appeal - orders passed under section 55A r.w.s. 16A(5) of the Wealth-tax Act - assessee had transferred his ancestral agricultural land and declared income from Long Term Capital Gain - appeal filed by the assessee against the order of AVO in estimating the value of property as on 01.04.1981 - Held that - The said valuation report was called for by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) during the pendency of quantum Income Tax proceedings and applying the said valuation, the income has been computed under the head income from capital gains. The quantum appeals are filed before the Tribunal by the assessee independently. The present appeals filed by the assessee against order of AVO in determining the value of property under section 55A of the Act, are not maintainable and hence, the same are dismissed. Since, the appeals are not maintainable then mentioning the same as Wealth Tax Appeals does not affect the maintainability of the appeals. - Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of CIT(A) for appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals
2. Adoption of valuation method by AVO
3. Comparable sales instances relied upon by AVO
4. Adoption of rate of valuation by AVO
5. Appearance of registered valuer as per provisions of Wealth Tax Act, 1957
6. Deletion of unwarranted remarks in valuation report
7. Delay in filing appeals
8. Maintainability of appeals before Tribunal

Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of CIT(A) for appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals:
The assessee raised the issue that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the grounds of jurisdiction. The CIT(A) held that the matter had already been contested before them, and the quantum appeal for all assessment years was pending before the Tribunal. Consequently, the CIT(A) found no cause of action for the appeal and dismissed it as infructuous.

2. Adoption of valuation method by AVO:
The assessee contested the adoption of the valuation method by the Assistant Valuation Officer (AVO). The AVO had determined the fair market value of the property as on a specific date. The Tribunal found that the valuation report was called for by the CIT(A) during the pendency of quantum Income Tax proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that the appeals filed by the assessee against the AVO's valuation under section 55A of the Act were not maintainable and dismissed them.

3. Comparable sales instances relied upon by AVO:
The assessee disputed the sales instances relied upon by the AVO as not being comparable. However, the Tribunal did not address this issue in detail as the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of maintainability.

4. Adoption of rate of valuation by AVO:
The assessee challenged the adoption of the rate of valuation by the AVO. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue extensively, as the appeals were dismissed on the basis of maintainability.

5. Appearance of registered valuer as per provisions of Wealth Tax Act, 1957:
The assessee raised concerns about the appearance of a registered valuer not being called by the Income Tax Officer or AVO as per the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. However, the Tribunal did not address this issue in detail due to the dismissal of the appeals on maintainability grounds.

6. Deletion of unwarranted remarks in valuation report:
The issue regarding the direction for deletion of unwarranted remarks in the valuation report of the Assistant Valuation Officer was raised by the assessee. The Tribunal did not discuss this matter extensively as the appeals were dismissed on the basis of maintainability.

7. Delay in filing appeals:
The assessee filed the appeals after a delay of 202 days and submitted a condonation application citing reasons for the delay. The Tribunal considered the reasons provided but ultimately dismissed the appeals on other grounds, rendering the discussion on the delay in filing moot.

8. Maintainability of appeals before Tribunal:
The Tribunal found that the appeals filed by the assessee against the AVO's valuation under section 55A of the Act were not maintainable. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable, rendering other issues raised by the assessee irrelevant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all three appeals of the assessee on the grounds of maintainability, without delving into the substantive issues raised by the assessee regarding the valuation method, comparable sales instances, appearance of registered valuer, and deletion of remarks in the valuation report. The Tribunal emphasized that the maintainability of the appeals superseded the discussion on the merits of the case.

← Previous Next →