9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TRI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR PRANAV G DESAI, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. These tax appeals have been filed by the Revenue challenging the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following questions have been presented for our consideration: (a) Whether in the facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in allowing the quantum appeal of the assessee and thereby quashing the order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax passed u/s. 25(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957? (b) Whether, in the facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the Commissioner of Wealth Tax by way of impugned order has sought to revise his own order passed u/s. 25(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, particularly when the Commissioner of Wealth Tax has sought to revise the order of the AO passed u/s. 16(3) r.w.s. 17 r.w.s. 25(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and not that passed under section 16(3) r.w.s. 17 r.w.s. 25(2) of the Act. (c) Whether, in the facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons given by CWT(Appeals) in assessee's own case for the assessment year 1992-93. Consequent to this order, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by adopting value of the land at the rate of ₹ 24.57 per sq.mtr. 3. This order of the Assessing Officer was taken in revision by the Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 25(2) of the Act. The assessee, upon notice, contended inter alia that once the powers under Section 25(1) of the Act were already exercised, the Commissioner, thereafter, could not exercise power under Section 25(2) of the Act. The Commissioner ignored such pleas and passed an order dated 20.03.2014 and directed the Assessing Officer to carry out fresh valuation by making following observations: 1. The revision sought to be made u/s. 25(2) of the W.T.Act is on the basis of difference in the value of land adopted while finalizing the wealth tax assessment for A.Y. 1999-2000 to 2009-2010 and the value of land as adopted while finalizing the income tax assessment for the A.Y. 1989-90. In the earlier instances when the CWT, Jamnagar directed the AO to reassess the wealth of the assessee in accordance with direction of the CWT(A) for A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red information from the stamp valuation authority, the prices at which properties in identical type of location in Jamnagar have been sold during the relevant periods to have an idea of the actual existing market prices in Jamnagar for such property and after taking into account other relevant aspects in the distinctive facts of the case should have arrived at an acceptable conclusion regarding the correctness of the market price of the land. It is clearly apparent that there should have been better application of mind during the assessment proceedings. In the light of the above observation it is clear that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue as the property of the assessee is in a prime location is Jamnagar and the rate of ₹ 24.57 per sq.mtr as adopted by the AO is by no stretch of imagination the correct rate of valuation. In view of the above facts, the assessment made in respect ofthe AYs. 1999-2000 to 2009-10 are hereby cancelled and the AO is directed to make fresh assessment in the cases of these assessment years in accordance with the above discussions. 4. This order of the Commissioner gave rise t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation:- For the purpose of this sub section- (a) the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] shall be deemed to be an authority subordinate to the Commissioner; and (b) an order by the Commissioner declining to interfere shall be deemed not to be an order prejudicial to the assessee. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in subsection (1), the Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by [an Assessing Officer] is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling it and directing a fresh assessment. 6. Upon perusal of the said provision, it can be seen that under sub section (1) of Section 25, the Commissioner has the power either of his own motion or on application made by the assessee to call for record of any proceeding of any order passed by the authority subordinate to him and aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
