9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... change of mind and on second thoughts he valued the property on the basis of the land and building method, such recourse would not be permissible under section 35(1)(aa) of the Act. Thus, the subsequent report pursuant to the order dated March 28, 1985, shall not be admissible under law and the Tribunal has not committed any error in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are as follows: The respondent is assessed for wealth-tax in the status of an individual. The valuation date is December 31, of each year. She owned, inter alia, a half share in Manjushree Cinema and a land at Nunhai, Agra. During the course of the assessment proceedings under the Act, the Wealth-tax Officer referred the question of valuation to the Assistant Valuation Officer, who determined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... termine the valuation in accordance with section 16A of the Act. In the net result the subsequent report dated March 28, 1985, was not taken into consideration. The order has been upheld by the Tribunal. We have heard Sri Shambhoo Chopra, learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that under section 35(1)(aa) of the Act, the Valuation Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty is not correct. By adopting one of the several methods prescribed and accepted for valuing the property, no mistake apparent on the record crept in. In this view of the matter, merely because the Valuation Officer had a change of mind and on second thoughts he valued the property on the basis of the land and building method, such recourse would not be permissible under section 35(1)(aa) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
