Anoop Sharma, Judicial Member - (1.)THIS is an appeal by the assessee challenging the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax passed under Section 25(2) of the 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, Talangara, 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 referred to as the DVO) report. The valuation report is dated 29-3-1975 and was made after the DVO personally visited the premises and inspected the same on 23rd and 24th December, 1974. The proposal initially as on 20-1-1975 was to value the property at Rs. 4,60,815. However, after taking into consideration the objections of the assessee and hearing him in March, 1975,the value was taken at Rs. 3,58,800 vide report dated 29-3-1975. The WTO, following this report, took the same value and passed the assessment order on 16th March, 1979.
The Commissioner was of the opinion that the order passed by the WTO taking the value of this property at Rs. 3,58,800 as on 31-8-1972 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, on the ground that the report of the DVO was not correct 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.

(3.)SRI S.E. Dastur, the learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset submitted that the Commissioner's order cannot be upheld because the WTO had not committed any error in valuing this property by following the DVO's report. He submitted that under Section 16A(1) read with Section 16A(6) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, once a reference has been made by the assessing officer to the Valuation Officer in relation to determination of the value of an asset and after the receipt of an order under Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (5), of Section 16A passed by the Valuation Officer, the assessing officer was left with no other alternative but to follow this order and determine the valuation on the basis of the estimate of the Valuation Officer. He, therefore, urged that by adopting the value of the property on the 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 undervalued.