Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 1920 1991 SLD 1920 (1991) 191 ITR 186
Karnataka High Court

K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT AND R. RAMAKRISHNA, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of Wealth Tax

v.

M. Ramachandran

Law:

Section:

Section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 - Reassessment - Information - Assessment years 1964-65 to 1971-72 - Assessee filed return based on registered valuer's report - Whether subsequent reopening of assessment based on departmental valuer's report would fall under section 17(1)(b) and not under section 17(1)(a) when assessee had not suppressed any facts-Held, yes - Whether in a case where valuer's report with reference to relevant valuation dates was applied and not merely valuation report for subsequent year, reopening of assessment on basis of such valuer's report was valid -Held, yes FACTS For the assessment years 1964-65 to 1971-72 the assessee had filed a registered valuer's report wherein the valuer had allowed a deduction towards layout charges. Subsequently, within four days of the completion of assessment, the WTO initiated reassessment proceedings on the basis of the department's valuation report for which he had referred the case to the valuation cell. The reasons for reopening of the assessment were that (i) the valuer had allowed as deduction a sum towards lay-out charges while this deduction was not properly allowable because the lay-out charges were of contingent nature, (ii) besides, valuer had adopted different rates varying from Rs. 90 to Rs. 180 per square yard. The assessee contended (i) that a subsequent report of the valuer could not be information for action under section 17, and (ii) that as there was no suppression of any relevant material by the assessee, so the question would not fall under section 17(1)(a). On appeal, the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal held that the report of the valuer could not be the basis of action under section 17. On reference: HELD It could not be said that the reopening of the assessment was solely on the basis of the subsequent report of the valuer. The ultimate valuation done by the WTO was on the basis of the report of the valuer consequent on a reference by him. A perusal of the revised assessment orders revealed that the valuer made the valuation with reference to each of the relevant valuation dates. The valuation by the expert was not as on any subsequent date and this was not…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492