SATISH CHANDRA, J. - (1.) HAJI Inayat Hussain had died on 8th Feb., 1962. His son Makki Mian filed a return of the estate of the deceased. The Asstt. CED passed an ex parte assessment order on 23rd Feb., 1963 computing the principal value of the estate at Rs. 301,500. The accountable person appealed and succeeded. The initial order was set aside and the Asstt. CED was directed to make a fresh assessment. On remain the Asstt. CED passed a fresh order dt. 4th March, 1967 computing the principal value of the estate at Rs. 3,55,000. The accountable person again went up in appeal. The Appellate Controller confirmed the finding that because of the defaults of the accountable person the Asstt. CED was entitled to pass an ex parte assessment order. The other point pressed before him related to Chand Building. The accountable person asserted that this building had been gifted to his deceased wife more than two years prior to his death, and so, the value of this property ought to have been excluded. The Appellate Controller accepted this submission and remanded the case to the Asstt. CED with the direction to go into all the relevant aspects relating to Chand Building and pass a fresh order according to law with regard to it.
(2.) AFTER this second remand the Asstt. CED took up the matter again and valued the Chand Building at Rs. 1,00,000. We deducted this amount and held that the principal value of the immovable properties came to Rs. 2,54,082/-. The accountable person again went up in appeal. The Appellate Authority accepted the submission of the assessee that there was no basis for valuing the Chand Building at Rs. 1,00,000/- when the same building had been valued at a higher figure by the Asstt. CED himself on the earlier occasion. He computed the value of the Chand Building by multiplying the annual letting value by twenty, i.e. Rs. 7138/- X20. He also granted an allowance of 1/6 for repairs in respect of the remaining buildings while computing the principal value of the estates. Ultimately he concluded that the total value of the immovable properties was Rs. 1,52,400/-. The Asstt. CED went up in appeal to the Tribunal. His grievance was accepted. The Tribunal held that the Asstt. CED's second assessment order permitted reopening of the valuation of Chand Building only and that was done by the Income Tax Officer. The assessee had no legitimate grievance thereafter. The Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to refix the valuation of the remaining immovable properties all over again. The appeal was allowed and the valuation of Rs. 2,54,082/- as determined by the Asstt. CED in his third assessment order was accepted.
(3.) AT the instance of the assessee the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for our opinion:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income tax Tribunal was justified in holding that the zonal Appellate Controller's order was without jurisdiction. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Zonal Appellate Controller was justified in excluding the correct value of Chand Building from the third assessment." ;