9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that filed by the appellant is directed to be adopted - W.T.A. No.09/Ahd/2014, W.T.A. No.10/Ahd/2014 - - - Dated:- 12-5-2016 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Shri S. S. Godara, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Ms. Somugyan Pal, Sr.DR For the Respondent : Shri S.N. Divatia, AR ORDER Per Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountnat Member Both these appeals by the Revenue are directed against the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax(Appeals)-VIII, Ahmedabad dated 21/03/2014 for the assessment year 1990-91 1991-92. 2. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted though the appeals of Revenue pertain to different assessment years, but the issue in both the appeals are identical and ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 2.2. Assessing Officer (AO) on perusing the return of wealth noticed that the value of immovable properties shown by the assessee was less than the fair market value. He accordingly, referred the matter to Department Valuer for determining the fair market value. The Valuer determined the value of Pratap Stud Farm at ₹ 62,87,000/-. Based on the valuation Report, AO valued Pratap Stud Farm and determined the taxable wealth of assessee at ₹ 60,31,200/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee carried the matter before ld.CWT(A), who vide order dated 23/10/2007 decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CWT(A), matter was carried b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld.CWT(A) reads as under:- 4.3. Decision: I have carefully considered the order and the submission made by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings. The AO has taken the values of immovable properties owned by the appellant namely, Pratap Stud Farm on the basis of valuation report submitted by the Departmental Valuation Officer. In the first round the appeal was dismissed by CWT(A) and the matter went before honourable 1TAT Ahmedabad for the decision. It was observed by honourable ITAT Ahmedabad that no opportunity was given by the CWT(A) to the valuation officer while disposing off the appeal. Accordingly the appeals were set aside to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunities. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced a copy of that order before me during the course of appellate proceedings. It is noted that the honourable ITAT had accepted the valuation submitted by the appellant for the property. Accordingly, the matter is covered by the decision of Jurisdictional ITAT in the case of appellant for earlier years in which the order of CWT(A) holding the valuation made by the registered valuer has been upheld. The relevant finding of the CWT(A) which have been reproduced by the honourable ITAT in its order in WTA number 444 to446/AHD/96 for A Y 1987-88 to 89 - 90 are reproduced here under: - I have no hesitation in accepting the report of Mr. M. G. Patel in respect of this property known as Prafap Stud Farm. The Assessing Officer is accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis of registered valuation report should be accepted appears to be justified and is acceptable. The valuation made by the AO is therefore, set aside and that filed by the appellant is directed to be adopted. 4.1. Before us, the Revenue has not pointed out any distinguishing feature in the facts of the present case and that of the facts for AY 1987- 88 and AY 1988-89 nor has pointed out any contrary binding decision. In view of these facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CWT(A) and, therefore, the same is hereby upheld. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 4.2. Before us, since both the parties have admitted that the facts in the case(s) of AYs 1990-91 1991-92 are identical, we therefore f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
