MEGJI MATHARDAS HUF Vs. FIRST WEALTH TAX OFFICER
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
T.D. Sugla, President -
(1.) THESE five appeals by the assessee, a HUF, relate to its assessments for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70.
(2.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the assessee-HUF owned certain immovable properties in Bombay. The value of these properties was shown at Rs. 3,50,000 for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. The same was shown at Rs. 8,03,000 for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 on the basis of a valuation report given by K.G. Kapadia & Co., Government approved valuer. In the light of the report, the value shown for the earlier years in the original returns filed by the assessee, was suitably enhanced for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-08 to Rs. 4,78,000, Rs. 6,00,000 and Rs. 7,34,000, respectively, by filing the 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.
Subsequently, the WTO got these properties valued by a departmental valuer. The departmental Valuation Officer has, by his report dated 1-12-1979, valued these properties for each of the years under consideration at a substantially higher figure than the value shown by the assessee and adopted by the WTO in the assessment orders. The valuation by the departmental Valuation Officer of these properties in the respective years was Rs. 15,00,000, Rs. 20,21,000, Rs. 20,21,000, Rs. 12,91,000 and Rs. 12,19,000.
(3.) ON the basis of the figures as per the department valuer's report, the Commissioner felt that the valuation adopted by the WTO was prima facie very low and there were reasons to believe that the orders of the WTO were erroneous insofar as they were prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. A show-cause notice was issued to the assessee in response to which the assessee filed written reply and the counsel for the assessee was heard by the Commissioner on 16-1-1981. However, for reasons given in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his order, the Commissioner has rejected the assessee's objection, set aside the orders of assessment and directed the WTO to make assessments afresh after determining the correct market value of these properties in each of these years, taking into account all the relevant facts and materials into consideration.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.