9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (4) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee as stated in the valuers' report, dated 22nd July, 1963, was calculated in accordance with law ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the valuers as stated in the said report without any reason in support of it was in accordance with law ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in disposing of the appeal on the basis of the said decision of the valuers ? " The assessment year is 1958-59, the relevant valuation date being the 31st December, 1957. The Wealth-tax Officer computed the value of the respondent's net assets on a global basis in terms of section 7(2)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act by deducting the liabilities from the assets as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if there is a difference of opinion between the two valuers, the matter shall be referred to a third valuer nominated by agreement, or failing agreement, by the Appellate Tribunal, and the decision of that valuer on the question of valuation shall be final." In accordance with the above provisions, the Tribunal by its order dated the 2nd April, 1963, referred the question of valuation of the " goodwill " to two valuers being the nominees of the respective parties. The valuers submitted a unanimous report on the 22nd July, 1963, stating that the value of the " goodwill " as on the 31st December, 1957, was " nil ". Conformably to the valuers' decision the Tribunal directed that the value of the " goodwill " should be taken at " nil " in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 runs thus : " I further say that question Nos. 1 and 2 as suggested by the applicant do not arise out of the order of the Tribunal as the said questions were not raised before the Tribunal nor has the Tribunal dealt with the said questions in its order ........" The department did not file any affidavit-in-reply to controvert the averments aforesaid. And when the final order was made by the court for a reference under section 27(3), counsel appearing for the department did not have it recorded also that the averments in the affidavit-in-opposition were not admitted. In these premises, we are unable to entertain in this reference questions Nos. 1 and 2 and decline to answer them. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
