9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ramaganj. Indore, in the light of the provisions of r. 1BB. He had further directed that on this basis if the value so arrived at is not lesser than the value shown by the assessee, than the reference to the Valuation Officer under s. 16A would be unnecessary or invalid. He then referred to the copy of the letter dt. 15th Nov., 1983 addressed by the assessee to the WTO in which the assessee had submitted that in case the WTO is proposing to value the property otherwise than under s. 1BB, then he should consider such objections as were made before the Valuation Officer and also give deductions of repairs at 1/6th of the ALV, 6 per cent for collection charges and also adopting multiplier of 10. Shri Gujrati submitted that the AAC's order dt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d second appeal to the Tribunal which he did not do. Since no second appeal was preferred which goes to establish that the Departmental Representative has accepted the order of the AAC and thereby the only duty of the WTO was to apply rule 1BB and arrive at the value of the property. Once a direction has been given by the AAC it would be the duty of the WTO to follow it and he would have no jurisdiction of re-examining the issue as it would tantamount to over-stepping the jurisdiction or authority which has already been limited by the order of the AAC. Reliance was placed on Pulputi Subbarao & Co. vs. AAC (1959) 35 ITR 673 (AP), Surendra Overseas Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 872 (Cal) and CIT vs. Bandaru Sanyasi Raju (1980) 19 CTR (AP) 146 : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e value arrived at by that rule in which case no reference to the Valuation Officer would be necessary. 5. The WTO, however, understood this direction of the AAC to mean that he was to examine the applicability of rule 1BB to the facts of the case and came to the conclusion that since less than 2/3rd of the builtup area was used for self-residence, rule 1BB would not apply. This particular action of the WTO is totally unwarranted as has been rightly held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of the CIT vs. Bhandaru Sanyasi Raju (1980) 19 CTR (AP) 146 : (1981) 127 ITR 453 (AP) and also by the same High Court in its earlier judgment in the case of Pulipati Subbarao & Co. vs. AAC (1959) 35 ITR 673 (AP) and by the Calcutta High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
