9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12,68,742" 3.The assessee appealed to the CWT(Appeals) with reference to three other matiers, viz. (1) Addition of Rs. 1,10,500 to the property in Five-Falls Road, Courtallam, (2) Addition of Rs. 64,339 to the value of shares in Tamilnad Mercantile Bank, and (3) Addition of Rs. 3,50,000 to the value of Diamonds. It may be noted that the valuation of Thangam Coffee Curing Works was not a matter raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal. 4. However by order dated 23.12.1988 the CWT (Appeals) confirmed the valuation of this property also in the following paragraph :---- " 4. Another point common to all the 3 appeals relates to valuation of immovable properties. The assessee owns immovable-properties one of which is of substantial value. That property is used as a coffee curing works. In respect of all immovable properties the Assessing Officer increased the value on ad hoc basic. But in respect of one property at Courtallam the assessee claimed exemption under sec. 7(4) on the ground that it is the only property owned by the appellant for residential purposes and therefore the value as on 1-4-1971 should be adopted. The claim is liable to be rejected outright as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal with regard to the valuation of this property, the appellate authority had jurisdiction to go into it and when he had confirmed the assessment on that point it had merged with his order and was not amenable to review u/s. 25(2). It was submitted that the Explanation u/s. 25(2) referred only to the matters not considered by the appellate authority and would not apply to the present case. In the alternative it was argued that as held by the Tribunal in A.R. Abu Baker's case the order made could not be regarded as erroneous since the WTO had to complete the assessment before the limitation expired and the valuation report received thereafter could not be made the basis of the fresh assessment. Lastly it was argued relying on the decision in the case of Venkata Krishna Rice Co. v. CIT [1987] 30 Taxman 528 (Mad.) that the assessment could not be regarded as prejudicial simply because some more tax could be collected if the assessment had been made in a different manner, as long as the assessment was in accordance with law. 8. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the revenue that since the assessee did not appeal on the question of valuation of this property it could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry also to emphasise that the statute provides that, once an assessment comes before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, his competence is not restricted to examining those aspects of the assessment which are complained of by the assessee ; his competence ranges over the whole assessment and it is open to him to correct the Income-tax Officer not only with regard to a matter raised by the assessee but also with regard to a matter which has been considered by the Income-tax Officer and determined in the course of the assessment. It is also well-established that an assessee having once filed an appeal cannot withdraw it. In other words, the assessee having filed an appeal and brought the machinery of the Act into working cannot prevent the Appellate Assistant Commissioner from ascertaining and settling the real sum to be assessed, by intimation of his withdrawal of the appeal. Even if the assessee refuses to appear at the hearing, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can proceed with the enquiry and if he finds that there has been an under-assessment, he can proceed with the enquiry and if he finds that there has been an under-assessment, he can enhance the assessment." At the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te or revisional order in each case and the scope of the statutory provisions conferring the appellate or revisional jurisdiction." In that case the Supreme Court found that the order of assessment had not merged with the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) because the question of exemption claimed in that case was not the subject matter of revision. The Supreme Court pointed out that that case was quite similar to the case of Amritlal Bhogilal Co. where the order of the ITO granting registration could not be deemed to have merged with the order of the Appellate Commissioner in an appeal taken against a composite order of assessment because the matter of registration was not part of the assessment and could not, therefore, be the subject of appeal or review by the appellate Commissioner in an appeal against the assessment alone. 11. In the present case, as we have noted above, the valuation of the property in question was the subject of assessment where the WTO considered the matter and determined the value different from the value shown by the assessee in the return. Though the assessee did not appeal against that point, the CWT(Appeals) considered the questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
