9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (10) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the relevant valuation dates and the value which was fixed by the Valuation Cell of the department as on 31st March, 1979. He therefore, considered that the orders of assessment for the two years were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests or revenue. In the circumstances, he issued a show cause notice and rejecting the objection of the assessee to the proposed order, set aside the assessment and directed the WTO to redo the same in accordance with law. 2. The ld. representative for the assessee objected to the order of the CWT, both on the point of jurisdiction of the CWT or the validity of the order and on merit. It is pointed out that the WT assessments for the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79 under appeal were completed and deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 31st March, 1979 in respect of the properties concerned, it was obvious that the values accepted in the original assessments on the basis of returns furnished by the assessee are unreasonably low and obviously would not represent the correct value as on that dates. According to his submission, the WTO has not applied his mind to the determination of the proper value as on the valuation dates relevant for the assessment years under appeal. The ld. departmental representative also referred to two decisions as supporting his stand, namely the Delhi High Court decision in Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) and Supreme Court decision in Mahendra Mills Ltd. vs. P. B. Desai, AAC Anr. 1975 CTR (SC) 82 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies for the two earlier valuation dates, namely 31st March, 1977 and 31st March, 1978 the determination of the valuation cell itself was made long after the assessments for the two years were completed by the WTO and were not in existence at the time when the WTO made the assessments. The contention of the ld. departmental representative that the WTO has not applied his mind and has made the assessment in a perfunctory manner is not tenable because that is not the finding or reasons stated by the CWT for upsetting the assessments originally made. The whole basis of the CWT s orders is that there is a vast difference between the value fixed by the Valuation Cell of the department in respect of the properties as on 31st March, 1979 and the va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
