9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valuer's report for the subsequent years cannot be treated as information for reopening the earlier year's assessment under section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act ?" The assessment years are 1964-65 to 1971-72. The assessments were completed initially on March 23, 1973. Within four days, notices under section 17 were issued and served on the assessee. The reason for this is stated in the statement of the case thus: "The assessee has filed a valuer's report dated January 12, 1973, wherein the value of property known as Mudumbai property is shown at Rs. 37,38,378. The valuer has allowed as deduction a sum of Rs. 7,69,500 towards layout charges. This deduction is not properly allowable because the layout charges are of contingent nature. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders reveals that the valuer made the valuation with reference to each of the relevant valuation dates. The valuation by the expert (i.e., the valuer) was not as on any subsequent date and this is not a case where the assessing authority estimated the valuation of the property by going backwards by applying any percentage of deduction from the value of the properties furnished by the valuer with reference to a subsequent year. The assessing authority held that the proceedings would fall under section 17(1)(a) and, therefore, reassessment was possible since the action was within eight years from the end of the relevant years. In case the proceedings are to be under section 17(1)(b), the period of limitation is only four years from the end ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning the assessment was the expert opinion of the valuer as on the relevant valuation date itself ; such a report could be "information" for a proceeding under section 17(1)(b). The assessee's learned counsel, however, referred to the decision of this court in CWT v. V. N. Shankar [1991] 189 ITR 731 (TRC Nos. 8 and 9/84 dated January 4, 1991), There, it was held that whether the subsequent report of the Government valuer could be information for initiating the proceedings under section 17(1)(b) depended upon the facts of each case ; it was held that valuation being not an exact science, it is inevitable to have different valuations in respect of the same property and, consequently, a marginal difference in valuation cannot be a ground to re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
