9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having gone abroad, that cannot be a valid ground for adjournment of the case as the other counsel for the petitioners is here and can well argue the petition. That being so, the application for adjournment is turned down. Sri Prabhakar Mehrotra appears for the petitioners and Sri Bharati Agarwal appears for the Revenue and they are heard. By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the reference made by respondent No. 1 for the valuation of properties Nos. 17/9 and 17/9A, the Mall, Kanpur, and also pray that the respondents be restrained from making any valuation on the basis of the reference made by respondent No. 1, vide his orders dated February 2, 1995 and July 10, 1995. Counter-affidavit has been filed denying the averme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment or reassessment proceedings are pending and in contravention of the provisions of section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act or those of section 55A of the Income-tax Act proceedings for valuing the petitioners' property have commenced. Dealing with the point in issue elaborately it is contended in para. 15 of the counter-affidavit giving adequate reply to the petitioners' submissions that section 16A of the Act applies with full force and the Assessing Officer can make reference to the Valuation Officer regarding the petitioners' property and section 16A of the Act also provides for fair market value of the assets. For an appraisal of the case in a nutshell it is necessary to reproduce the reply submitted by the respondents in their coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst which proceeding under section 148 of the Income-tax Act was pending." Thus, the action taken by the respondents does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference in writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, on the facts as emerging and referred to above, the decisions referred to by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, V. K. Jain v. WTO [1992] 193 ITR 89 (All) and Laxmi Devi Jain v. WTO [1992] 193 ITR 154 (All), (do not apply) to the facts of the instant case and, therefore, are of no avail to the petitioners. Thus, in our considered opinion, this petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. The stay order dated October 17, 1995, is hereby vacated. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
