9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Wealth-tax Act, 1957. 2. The assessment year involved is 1973-74 for which the relevant valuation date is 31-8-1972. The assessee, an individual, submitted his wealth-tax return wherein the value of his residential house at 80/14, Talangam, Kasaragod (Kerala State) was shown at Rs. 2,00,000. The WTO assessed the same at Rs. 3,58,800 on the basis of the District Valuation Officer's (hereinafter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct as the property as on 31-8-1972 was not partly completed and that he should have made independent enquiries about the date of completion of the construction. On this ground, he was of the opinion that the property had been valued at a much lower figure than the correct fair market value of the property. This is the impugned order which has been challenged before us in appeal. 4. Sri S.E. Dastu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of the Valuation Officer's report, the assessing officer had not committed any error and the resort to section 25(2) of the Act by the Commissioner on this account was illegal. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the order of the Commissioner and contended that it was within the powers of the Commissioner to revise such an order where an asset had been under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rror in doing so. We, therefore, hold that the order passed by the assessing officer was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Section 25(2) of the Act clearly stipulates that the order which the Commissioner can revise under this section should be erroneous. As we have already held above that the WTO did not commit any error in following the DVO's report, his order, accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
