9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (2) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal against the said enhancement in compensation to the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of the Civil Court and sent back the matter to the Civil Court for re-consideration and decide the point afresh. Thereafter on 6th July, 1982 the Civil Court fixed the compensation at Rs. 8,40,661 including interest on 6th July, 1982. Against this decision of the Civil Court, the Government as well as the assessee have gone in appeals to the High Court. The appeals before the High Court are said to be pending even on the date on which the appeals before us were heard. The assessee had offered for taxation Rs. 1,11,154 in respect of the right to receive compensation relating to those lands. This was the figure of award given by the Sub-Divi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of penalty on the basis of the following observations: "5. The contention of the counsel is correct. The issue involved here is the valuation of the assessee's right to receive the compensation and it cannot be said that valuing it initially at the lower figure was mistake apparent from record rectifiable under s. 35. The value this right, the WTO was to have considered various factors. It was observed by their Lordships of Supreme Court in similar facts, in the case of Mrs. Khorshed Shapper Chenai vs. ACED (1980) 14 CTR (SC) 356 : (1980) 122 ITR 21 (SC) that the assessing authority will have to estimate the value haring regard to peculiar nature of the property its marketability and the surrounding circumstances including the risk or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e guidelines given by the High Court in respect of right to receive compensation of the land acquired by the Sub-Divisional Officer in 1971-72, bearing Survey Nos. 165 and 195, constituted a ground for the WTO to invoke the provisions of s. 35 of the WT Act, 1957." 5. We have heard the parties. We find that the principles laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court in T.S. Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers and Ors., and in Mrs. Khorshed Shapper Chenai vs. ACED would be applicable. It has been laid down that mere change of opinion would not be justified for rectifying the assessment orders. It has also been laid down that if the point is debatable and the two conceivable view would be taken, the order could not be rectified. In the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
