9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty has been levied on the two portions of the property valued at Rs. 2,71,500 and Rs. 1,90,000. This value was arrived at on the basis of the valuation report submitted by the valuation cell. The petitioners' short grievance is that while passing the impugned assessment order on June 25, 1987, the respondents totally ignored and overlooked the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, vide their Instruction No. 1758. This instruction was issued on 15/19th May, 1987. It means that as on the date of the passing the impugned order on June 25, 1987, the instruction in question was admittedly in operation. In other words, it also means that the Assessing Officer was obliged to follow the instructions while disposing of the valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exceed Rs. 7.5 lakhs, the assessment should have been completed in terms of section 58(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. In those cases, however, where a notice was issued upon the person accountable under section 58(2) of the Act, the instruction said that the assessment should be completed under section 58(3) of the Act, but in the manner as if the assessment proceeding was under section 58(1) of the Act. The instruction also stated that if for any special reasons the Assessing Officer is of the view that compliance with the instructions Nos. (i) and (ii) in any particular case would be highly detrimental to the Revenue, he may with the prior approval of the Controller of Estate Duty proceed to complete the assessment in the normal course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d above where he felt that the valuation as returned would be highly detrimental to the interests of the Revenue. A perusal of the impugned assessment order leaves me in no doubt that the Assessing Officer, by patently misinterpreting the instruction and by unnecessarily importing the valuation report, has gone contrary to the spirit of the instruction and thus the impugned order clearly stands vitiated. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside to the extent it has levied estate duty on the basis of the valuation returned in the valuation report by the valuation cell. The respondents are directed by issuance of a writ of mandamus to levy estate duty upon the estate left by the decea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
