9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 977-78 and 1978-79 were completed by the WTO on 25-3-1983. The assessee had one-sixth share in a building at Visakhapatnam and in the original assessments the WTO had valued this property at Rs. 5,84,477 as against Rs. 5,70,749 returned. The WTO's valuation was based on the valuation report of the departmental valuer for the year 1974-75. Since the assessment years involved are 1977-78 and 1978-79, the valuation as on 31-3-1974 would be slightly out of date and, therefore, the WTO had as a matter of fact requested the Valuation Officer to value these properties as on 31-3-1977 and 31-3-1978. This reference was made on 6-12-1982. The Valuation Officer, however, did not file his report to the WTO till 29-3-1983. It was common ground that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uation Officer. He has no choice in this matter. Insofar as the WTO has not adopted these figures, his order is prejudicial to the revenue. In support of his contention, he referred the decision in the case of P.K. Bajpaie (HUF) v. WTO [1984] 7 ITD 913 (Cal). He also referred to the commentary of Sampat Iyengar's Law of Income-tax, Seventh edn, Vol. 5, on this point at p. 4592. He then submitted that it is not correct to say that an order should be judged as erroneous only on the materials available on records. In support of this contention, he referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd. v. Allahiri, ITO [1983] 141 ITR 239. 6. We have considered the submissions. The decisions of the Calcutta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention that facts subsequent to the date of the assessment order can also be looked into the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd. has to be examined. The paragraph in support of this contention is as follows: "It was contended by Mr. Kolah that the only record which the Commissioner had to take into account under section 263 of the Act was the record as it existed when the ITO passed the order under section 3(4) and the law as it stood then. It was, therefore, not open to the Commissioner to take the Finance Bill that became law subsequent to the ITO's order into account. Mr. Joshi is right when he points out that at the time the ITO passed the order the budget proposals had been announced and were v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
