9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valuer. Moreover, the valuation of the property as disclosed by the applicant was based on the report of the approved valuer duly approved by the Department. There is bound to be a difference in the valuation report given by different Valuation Officers whether they are approved valuers or Departmental Valuers. Moreover, the value can differ on account of different methods of valuation being adopted. In the present case, the difference arose because of different methods of valuation adopted by the approved valuer and by the Departmental valuer. Thus, no case of concealment even otherwise is established. Question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue - - - - - Dated:- 31-3-2005 - Judge(s) : R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred the property for valuation under section 16A to the Valuation Officer, Unit II, Kanpur, who valued the property by the land and building method at Rs. 9,04,500 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 11,14,600 for the assessment year 1980-81, which was adopted by the assessing authority while framing the assessment. In further appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Kanpur, vide order dated January 24, 1986, applied the average pf the land and building method and the rental method and determined the value of the property at Rs. 6,10,000 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 6,98,000 for the assessment year 1980-81. In further appeal, the Tribunal vide order dated January 29,1987, disposed of the appeal by holding that the rent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed June 7, 1968, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has reproduced the speech of the Deputy Prime Minister made in the Lok Sabha on April 29, 1968, at the time of moving the Finance Bill, 1968, and had directed that his observations have to be carefully kept in view. The relevant paragraph of the speech has been reproduced in the circular, which reads as under: "Further, there should ordinarily be no occasion for the levy of penalty for understatement of the value of an asset in cases in which the assessee supports his valuation by the report of an approved valuer; and the taxpayer can thus readily protect himself from the possibility of penalty proceedings." It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the apex court that the circular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
