9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (5) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of this report, the value shown for the earlier years in the original returns filed by the assessee, was suitably enhanced for the asst. yrs. 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 to Rs. 4,78,000, Rs. 6,00,000 and Rs. 7,34,000 respectively by filing revised returns. The WTO after going through the valuation report submitted by the assessee accepted the valuation of the immovable properties as shown by the assessee for all the five years under consideration. 3. Subsequently, the WTO got these properties valued by a Departmental Valuer. The Departmental Valuation Officer has, by his report dt. 1st Dec., 1979 valued these properties for each of these years under consideration at a substantially higher figure than the value shown by the assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue. For this purpose, Sri S.E. Dastur, the ld. counsel for the assessee, has strongly relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Ganga Properties vs. ITO (1979) 118 ITR 447 (Cal). In particular, he urged that the WTO did not have the jurisdiction to call for the valuation report and that the CWT could not, in law, take into account the said report for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction u/s 25(2) of the WT Act, 1957. Inviting our attention to the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. R.K. Metal Works 1977 CTR (P&H) 99: (1978) 112 ITR 445 (P&H), it is submitted that it is necessary for assuming jurisdiction u/s 25(2) of the WT Act, 1957, that the CWT should at least prima facie come to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e orders of assessment passed by the WTO without following the aforesaid instruction were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 7. In reply, Sri S.E. Dastur has referred to the provisions of s. 16A of the WT Act, 1957, to show that the Circular referred to by the Deptl. Rep. goes beyond the provisions of the section and is, therefore, invalid. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 622 (Mad) for the proposition that any instruction issued by the Department cannot legally extend to the judicial aspects of the administration of the Act. 8. We have heard the parties and have gone through the facts on record and the cases relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
