9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A), who determined the value of the property on1st Jan., 1964at Rs. 70,050 and directed the ITO to determine the extent of capital gains accordingly. Now both the parties are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). According to the assessee the value of the property as on1st Jan., 1964was Rs. 2,02,000 declared by it. While according to the Revenue, the value was Rs. 20,000 only as estimated by the ITO. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee also pointed out that earlier the ITO had made an expert assessment on a total income of Rs. 35,000 on31st Mar., 1984. Later on when he noticed that the assessee had herself filed a return on 3rd March, 1983 declaring an income of Rs. 70,500 he cancelled that assessment vide order dt.12th Feb., 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred to yet another property No. 213,Westend Road,Meerutwithout giving any details whatsoever. Regarding the property in suit he has mentioned no details whatsoever except that the valuer had shown property to be fetching a rent of Rs. 690 p.m. He says "This property belongs to Post Master General, which was given to him by British Government and he was a retired employee. The rent alone is clearly taxable and including salary would be highly taxable. Now-here it has been shown that this was taxed." We have failed to understand and as to what the ITO meant by making the aforesaid (sic) narration. If the property belong to the Post Master General, how was Smt. Kevti Devi, the present assessee concerned with it? The ITO himself determined the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld give a much higher multiplier than usually applied for determining the fair market value of properties. The ITO should have in all propriety considered if it was proper to make a reference to the valuation officer. In any case he should have either himself collected the exemplars with all the necessary details or should have enforced the attendance of the assessee s registered valuer even if the assessee was not willing to produce him. We are, therefore, of the view that none of the two authorities can be said to have properly as on 1st Jan., 1964 and the matter should, therefore, go back to the ITO for a fresh determination of the issue, after giving the assessee proper opportunity of hearing. We set aside the assessment made by the IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
