9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (10) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... WTO held that since the value of the properties shown for these assessment years was based on the report of the assessee's approved valuer, the value of the properties for these three years as shown by the assessee will be accepted. The result was that the original assessments were made on net wealth of Rs. 3,35,842 for the asst. yr. 1976-77, Rs. 4,92,387 for the asst. yr. 1977-78 and Rs. 6,50,564 for the asst. yr. 1978-79, by a consolidated assessment order dt. 14th February, 1979. Subsequently, however, the WTO made an entry in the order sheet dt. 28th March, 1980 whereby he recorded the following reasons for the reopening of the assessments for the asst. yrs. 1975-76 to 1978-79 u/s. 17(1)(b) of the WT Act, 1957 "I have gone through the WT records of Shri Raj Kishore Rastogi (GIR No. 51— R), who is assessed in this Ward on scrutiny of the records. I found that Shri Raj Kishore Rastogi has filed Approved Valuer's report (placed in Miscellaneous cover for asst. yrs. 1975-76 to 1977-78 being one common folder) in which the value of the plot has been taken at Rs. 8 per sq. ft. as on 31-3-1974. In the case of the assessee whose building is situated on road side at the same place i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee's approved valuer obtained for the asst. yrs. 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 where the assessee's valuer M/s. Valuers Associated had mentioned that the rate of land in Major Banks locality ranged from Rs. 8 to Rs. 10 per sq. ft. for small plots but since the assessee's plot was very big, that is 24964 sq. ft. the rate of the assessee's land should be 2/3rd of Rs. 10, that is Rs. 6.67 per sq. ft. In support of the contention that the observation of the WTO in the reasons recorded on 28th March, 1980 that since in another case of Raj Kishore Rastogi the approved valuer had taken the value of the plot at Rs. 8 per sq. ft., the value taken by the assessee's approved valuer at Rs. 6 per sq. ft. was an under statement was incorrect. Elaborating on his argument, Sri Jindal submitted that even the assessee's approved valuer had mentioned that the value for small plots of land in that locality ranged from Rs. 8 to Rs. 10 per sq. ft. for small plots and, therefore there was nothing new in the remark of the ITO that in the case of Shri Raj Kishore Rastogi the value of the plot of land in the same locality was estimated by the approved valuer at Rs. 8 per sq. ft. When, as was admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the income capitalisation method and under the land and building method what was done by the assessee's approved valuer, was a perfectly valid and legitimate method of valuation and this method of valuation having once been accepted by the WTO in the original assessment proceedings, it was not open to the successor WTO to hold a different opinion and on that basis reopen the assessment u/s. 17(1)(b). Our attention was invited to the letter of the IAC of IT (Audit), Lucknow, dt. 13th April, 1978, addressed to the Senior Deputy Accountant General (Revenue Audit), Allahabad, wherein the IAC had also expressed the opinion that merely because the value arrived at under the land and building method was lower did not justify this relevant factor to be ignored and, therefore, the valuation already done at the average of the two method that is income capitalisation method and land and building method cannot justifiably be disturbed merely because it might be advantageous to revenue to adopt the valuation under the income capitalisation method alone. This, according to Sri Jindal, clinched the issue that what was done in the course of the original assessment proceedings was correct and what ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the plot belonging to him was valued at Rs. 8 per sq. ft. does not constitute any information which was not already on the record in the course of the original assessment proceedings, particularly, when it is not disputed that the plot of land of Shri Raj Kishore Rastogi was much smaller and the assessee's plot of land comprised of 24,964 sq. ft. That is, a very big plot of land. It is by now settled law that in giving estimate of value of property, the valuer is not a witness of facts but a mere expert who gives his opinion and, therefore, his opinion is not binding on the authorities. In these circumstances the opinion of the assessee's approved valuer that considering the very big size of the assessee's plot of land the value of the land should be taken at Rs. 6.75 per sq. ft. cannot be said to be mala fide, simply because in another case of Shri Raj Kishore Rastogi a small plot of land was estimated by the valuer at Rs. 8 per sq. ft., particularly, when in the report of the assessee's approved valuer itself there was a mention that the land rate in that locality ranged from Rs. 8 to 10 per sq. ft. but the assessee's approved valuer was taking the value at 2/3rd of the maximum i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
