9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As per the books of account, a total investment of Rs. 52,16,035 was disclosed. The construction was over and the petitioner got the building valued by an Approved Valuer. A detailed valuation was made by the valuer and he estimated the value of the building at Rs. 53,30,672. The building was constructed with financial assistance from the Bank of Baroda. The bank, as financing agency, had conducted periodical valuation or the building by its registered architect who estimated the cost of the building at Rs. 50,45,000. The investments made by the co-owners had been duly included in their respective wealth-tax returns and they have been accordingly assessed. The co-owners have maintained proper and regular books of account duly supported by v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is wrong as it is not based on any reasoning. Exhibit P-3, the valuation report of the District Valuation Officer, was dubbed as wide of the mark since the additions are primarily based on the ad hoc plinth area rates adopted by the District Valuation Officer. The first respondent further goes on to say that the report of the District Valuation Officer cannot be relied upon and hence, the Assessing Officer has gone wrong in banking on the report to assess the petitioner. In the result, as per exhibit P-3, the first respondent set aside the order of assessment passed against the petitioner with a direction to complete the assessment de novo in accordance with law after making an in-depth analysis of the facts and figures, books of account, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing mistakes. Since the infirmities and glaring mistakes in the valuation report have not been rectified, according to me, it is not open to the second respondent to assess the petitioner on the basis of such a valuation report which has been found to be erroneous. The action of the second respondent in making assessment on the basis of the valuation of the District Valuation Officer which has been found to be vitiated by glaring mistakes is accordingly liable to be set aside. In the result, I quash exhibit P-5 and there will be a direction to the second respondent to assess the petitioner only on the basis of a valid valuation report free from the infirmities pointed out by the first respondent. The original petition is allowed as abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
