9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The WTO made a reference to the Valuation Officer, Unit VIII, Bombay, on 4th Decision., 1980 stating that the value declared by the assessee was in accordance with the estimate filed by the assessee. According to the WTO, the value declared by the assessee appeared to be less than its fair market value and in his opinion the fair market value of the lands exceeded the value as declared by the assessee by more than 75 percent. Having regard to the nature of the assets and other relevant circumstances, he considered it necessary to refer the valuation of the assets to a Valuation Officer. He, therefore, requested the Valuation Officer, Unit VIII, Bombay to estimate the fair market value of the lands as on 31st March 1976 and send a copy of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of the departmental valuer's order which was binding on the WTO under s. 16A(6) of the WT Act and in further reducing the same to Rs. 8,74,003 only. The ld. departmental representative addressed us at great length along with Shri S. H. Balchandani, the valuation Officer, supporting how sound the report dt 20th March 1981 of Shri A.N. Mathur, the Valuation Officer was and how the CWT (A) was swayed away by irrelevant of considerations in reducing the valuation of the plots of land from Rs. 21.95 lakhs to Rs. 8,74,003 only. We do not presently propose to refer to the detailed arguments made on behalf of the Revenue in view of what follows. A copy of the order dt. 24th March 1980 of the AAC for the asst. yr. 1968-69 was placed before us on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n granted by the CWT (A) was fully justified and no interference was called for with her order. 5. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments on wither side. The 7 plots of land referred to in paper 1 above continued to be with the assessee from 31st March 1968 to 31st March 1976 without any appreciable change in the nature of ownership. The question is of their valuation for 31st March 1976. Shri A. N. Mathur, the Valuation Officer, had valued the property at Rs. 6,20,784 for all the valuation dates from asst. yr. 1968-69 to 1976-77 by his report dt. 5th March 1979 referred to in the WTO's letter dt. 4th Dec., 1980. This report has not been made available to us. At the same time, we do not thin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e into consideration any of the issues mentioned by the AAC in his order dt. 24th March 1980 and by Shri. P. J. Chainani, Another Valuation Officer in his report dt. 29th March 1975. In our opinion, therefore, the CWT (A) was fully justified in rejecting the valuation made by Shri. A. N. Mathur in his report dt. 20th March 1981. The order of the CWT(A) calls for no interference on this issue. 6. The next question is whether the CWT (A) was justified in scaling down the valuation of the seven plots of land to Rs. 8.74 lakhs as on 31st March 1976. As discussed earlier, Shri Mathur's both report first dt. 5th March 1979 and the later dt. 20th March 1981 do not provide any useful guidance in the valuation of these plots. Then we are left with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
