9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment under s. 59 of the ED Act was without jurisdiction and, therefore, illegal. The facts in this regard, the rival submissions and our conclusion thereon are briefly set out hereunder. 2. The estate duty assessment in this case was completed on 11th March, 1981 accepting the valuation of Rs. 2,58,035 shown in respect of a house property of the HUF based on a registered valuer s certificate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was an underassessment the extent of Rs. 1,61,288. Based on the same, the Asstt. CED reopened the assessment under s. 59(b) of the ED Act and completed the supplementary assessment after including the value of the surplus land of the extent of 28,286 sq. ft. 3. On appeal, the Appellate CED cancelled the supplementary assessment accepting the preliminary objection of the assessee that, the ropeni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciety vs. CIT (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 190 : (1979) 119 ITR 996 at 1003 (SC), wherein they have held that, although the audit party could not pronounce on the law, it nevertheless could draw the attention of the ITO to the same. According to him, in the present case, the audit party had only brought to the notice of the Asstt. Controller, certain factual mistakes committed by him while accepting the val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve no hesitation in agreeing with the Appellate Controller in his conclusion in this regard. As very rightly observed by the Appellate Controller, all the factual information relating to the valuation of the property was already available to the Asstt. CED in the shape of the valuation report of the registered valuer. It was for him to decide at the first opportunity on the basis of the same, as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it the Asstt. Controller a fresh application of his mind to the same issue or enable him to correct his own or his predecessor s errors of judgment. The Asstt. Controller cannot take action under this section merely because he happens to change his opinion or to hold an opinion different from that of his predecessors on the same set of facts. Applying these principles to the present case, it is qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
