9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (3) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid assessment years and declared the value of three of his immovable properties consisting of land and buildings at Rs. 3,24,509. One of the three items of the properties disclosed by him in his return was Luxmi Building, 16/103, M. G. Marg, Kanpur. The WTO (respondent No. 3) passed an order making a reference for valuation of the aforesaid property to respondent No. 2, who is Valuation Officer I, Income-tax Department, Kanpur. The remaining two properties were referred for valuation to separate Valuation Officers and we are not concerned in this petition with those properties. Respondent No. 2 issued a notice dated 26th November, 1975, to the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why the said property be not valued at Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in valuing the property. On the 10th August, 1978, the petitioner submitted before the WTO a detailed objection to the report of the Valuation Officer. By means of a communication dated 14th December, 1978, respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that the prayer made in his application dated 13th December, 1977, could not be acceded to because it would amount to referring back the case to the Valuation Officer. In this communication, the WTO expressed the opinion that no such fresh reference could be made to the Valuation Officer under the existing provisions of the Act. On the 24th January, 1979, the petitioner again filed an objection to the report of the Valuation Officer and while challenging the report made a request that he may be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction to give a report under sub-s. (5) not by virtue of the notice issued by him under sub-s. (4) of s. 16A but as a consequence of the reference made to him by the WTO and continues to have jurisdiction to act on the basis of such a reference till such time as he has submitted a report under sub-s. (5). It is only after he has submitted a report under sub-s. (5) that he becomes functus officio. The notice issued to the assessee under sub-s. (4) is only a provisional estimate by the Valuation Officer and as long as he is seized of the proceedings, we see no compelling reason to hold that he cannot withdraw an earlier notice and issue a fresh notice disclosing a different provisional estimate of the property. No principle of res judicata, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that in cross-examination the petitioner could have succeeded in establishing the valuation report to be incorrect, it still would not have been open to the WTO to disregard the estimate of the valuation given by respondent No. 2 in his report. No useful purpose consequently would have been served by the WTO permitting cross-examination of respondent No. 2 in the proceedings before him. There is yet another reason why the petition must fail. The WTO has no option but to accept and give effect to the valuation report of the Valuation Officer but the assessee in his appeal can challenge the correctness of the estimate of the valuation reported by the Valuation Officer. When the writ petition was presented before us, the assessment had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
