9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g ? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the mistake of fixing the market value of the lands without considering the impact of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, cannot be rectified under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act ? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer, did not have jurisdiction under section 35 to rectify the original order ? (v) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding and had sufficient materials to hold that the order under section 35 was passed on the basis of fresh materials which were not available at the time of the original assessment ? " The assessee in this case is an individual and he was holding extensi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision in K. S. Balakrishnan v. Commr. Agrl. LT. [1972] 86 ITR 263 (Mad), rectified the wealth-tax assessment and substituted the value of compensation fixed at Rs. 71,540 in the place of the market value adopted by him so far as the excess lands were concerned. The CWT thereafter initiated revisional proceedings under s. 25(2) on the ground that the order made by the WTO under s. 35 is erroneous and it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner found in the proceedings initiated under s. 25(2) that the WTO has gone into the question of valuation of the agricultural lands, on the basis of fresh materials and there is no case for rectification of the original order of the WTO. The Commissioner also felt that as the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification order under s. 35 is wrong and erroneous. Having regard to the facts referred to above, the Commissioner's jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under s. 25(2) cannot be questioned, for, the rectification order of the WTO is based on the decision in K. S. Balakrishnan v. Commr. of Agrl. I.T. [1972] 86 ITR 263, which has been subsequently overruled by a Division Bench in Commr. of Agrl. I.T. v. Balakrishnan [1976] 104 ITR 368 and, therefore, action is called for under s. 25. Hence, there is no justification for directing a reference on the first question. The other four questions set out above deal with the scope and ambit of s. 35 and the question whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the rectification order passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
