9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (6) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. The petitioner took time. Time was granted up to March 25, 1983. In the meanwhile, by notice dated March 19, 1983, evidenced by Ext. P-5, the Valuation Officer replied to the petitioner stating his views regarding the objections raised by the petitioner in Ext. P-2 and Ext. P-3. The petitioner filed his objections, Ext. P-6, on March 21, 1983. The 2nd respondent passed the final valuation report evidenced by Exts. R-2(a), and Exts. R-2(b), R-2(A) and R-2(B) on March 21, 1983, itself and later communicated the same to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed this O.P. on March 18, 1983, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P-1 notice dated December 20, 1982, and also the provisional valuation report, Exts. P-4 and P-4A. Notice was ordered in the O.P. on March 21, 1983. When the O.P. was pending in this court, the final valuation report was effected by the 2nd respondent evidenced by Exts. R-2(A) and R-2(B) dated March 21, 1983. The petitioner has filed a petition, C.M.P. No. 16023 of 1983, praying to quash Exts. R-2(A) (B) also. This O.P. was heard along with connected O.P. No. 2344 of 1983 and other cases. Exts. P-5 and P-6 have been prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the petitioner filed an annexure wherein details of five sales, which have taken place nearabout the properties which are to be valued, are furnished. The extent of the properties, survey number, document number, its location, and the consideration mentioned are all mentioned. Four of them are sale deeds by private parties. One of them is the award passed in land acquisition proceedings dated June 11, 1980 (See pp. 18 and 19 of the 2nd respondent's counter affidavit). The 2nd respondent has dismissed the objection in the following way in para. 8.3.3: " The contention that the land values adopted are excessive cannot be sustained. The sale instances given by the assessee in his objection are not real sales reflecting the market rates of Ernakulam. There may be stray cases of sales which may be tenanted Property sold to the same tenant or disposed of to near relations or gifted to wife or children. So against these sale instances, there is a long list of sale instances which approximates to the market rates of land in these localities relating to the areas for my valuation. The reference to valuation is received from, the Wealth tax Officer. From the very fact that the WTO has t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or said about the other four documents also referred to in the annexure. It is unknown as to why they are discarded. It is obvious that the 2nd respondent has acted mechanically. He did not apply his mind to the vital aspects arising in the case. The observations contained in para. 8.3.3. are of a general and sweeping nature, lacking in precision or application of a judicial mind and perhaps disposing of arbitrarily the materials placed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. The provisions of s. 16A of the W.T. Act are relevant in this context : "16A. (1) For the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment in respect of any assessment year commencing before the date of coming into force of this section) under this Act, the Wealth-tax Officer may refer the valuation of any asset to a Valuation Officer (a) in a case where the value of the asset as returned is in accordance with the estimate made by a registered valuer, if the Wealth-tax Officer is of opinion that the value so returned is less than its fair market value ; (b) in any other case, if the Wealth-tax Officer is of opinion (i) that the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (5) of the W.T. Act. The decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Bireshwar Mookerji v. IAC of Wealth-tax [1982] 135 ITR 29 at pp. 33 and 34 and of the Delhi High Court in Wenger and Co. v. District Valuation Officer [1978] 115 ITR 648 at pp. 655, 656 and 657, are instructive in this regard. The duties enjoined on such quasi-judicial authorities have been stated by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India [1970] AIR 1970 SC 150 at pp. 156 and 157 and there is no need to repeat what has been stated in the said decision. Suffice it to say that even a statutory authority should exercise his powers in accordance with law. He should act fairly, bona fide, honestly and with due care and caution, since the exercise of power by such authorities affects persons with civil consequences. Can it be said that the 2nd respondent when he passed Exts. R-2(A) and (B) did so, bearing in mind the above norms ? From the facts stated above, it is clear that the 2nd respondent acted arbitrarily and not " fairly " and also did not conform to the principles of natural justice in passing Exts. R-2(A) and R-2(B). The facts also disclosed that the 2nd respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd liabilities of the assessee, whether included in the accounts or not) as the Income-tax Officer may require.,-......... (2) For the purpose of obtaining full information in respect of the income or loss of any person, the Income-tax Officer may make such enquiry as he considers necessary. (3) The assessee shall, except where the assessment is made under section 144, be given an opportunity of being heard in respect of any material gathered on the basis of any enquiry under sub-section (2) an proposed to be utilised for the purpose of the assessment.' Counsel for the Revenue contended that it was only in respect of the materials gathered by the Income-tax Officer as a result of his enquiry under sub-section (2) of section 142 that he was bound to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard, that the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer of the previous return submitted by the assessee was sufficient material for a best judgment assessment and such knowledge cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be regarded as materials gathered on the basis of an enquiry within the meaning of section 142(3), and, so, no opportunity of being heard in respect of that material was requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
