BHARUCHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference under the WT Act, 1957, made at the instance of the assessee. It raises the following question: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was rightly held that the assessee cannot be allowed to rely on the valuation report at the time of hearing before the Tribunal and that the valuation of the properties taken at Rs. 8,00,000 for the asst. yrs. 1957 58 to 1959 60 was correct ? "
(2.) THE relevant assessment years are 1957 58 to 1959 60. The assessee did not file wealth tax returns for the above three years. The WTO issued notices to her under S. 17. Thereupon, she filed returns and disclosed net wealth for the three years thus : . Rs. Immovable property 8,00,000 Less : Business debts 60,000 The WTO was constrained to make best judgment assessments because the assessee did not comply with the notices issued under S. 16. He estimated the assessee's net wealth for each of the three years at Rs. 13,00,000. The assessee appealed to the AAC. The AAC confirmed the valuation made by the WTO of immovable property at Rs. 10,20,000 but reduced the valuation of movable property to Rs. 1,80,000. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal. Pending disposal of the appeal, notices were addressed to the assessee stating that she was entitled to refer the question of valuation of the immovable property to valuers and was called upon to nominate her valuer if she intended that a reference should be made. The assessee appointed her valuer. The Department appointed its valuer. The valuers thereafter submitted a valuation report valuing the assessee's share in the immovable properties at Rs. 3,21,000. The assessee relied upon this valuation report and submitted that the immovable property could not be valued at more than the aforesaid figure. The Department objected. The Tribunal stated that when the assessee herself had shown the valuation of the immovable property to be Rs. 8,00,000 "there is nothing wrong in accepting the same ".
(3.) IT took the valuation Of the immovable property to be Rs. 8,00,000. The question posed to us arises out of this finding.The relevant provision being S. 24(6)(a) of the WT Act, as it then read was thus: "Where the appellant objects to the valuation of the any property, the Tribunal may, and if the appellant so requires, shall, refer the question of the disputed value to the arbitration of two valuers, one of whom shall be nominated by the appellant and the other by the respondent, and the Tribunal shall, so far as that question is concerned, pass its orders under Sub S. (5) conformably to the decision of the valuers." ;