Valuation of iron ore sales requires factual findings on actual price, grade, and sale conditions before using benchmark rates.

An assessment based on the Indian Bureau of Mines rate and comparative dealer prices for iron ore could not stand without a categorical finding that the dealer had concealed turnover or actually sold the goods at a higher price than disclosed. The text notes that prior appellate and remand orders for later years had rejected use of the benchmark without examining the grade of ore, the nature of the goods sold, and whether a processing or screening plant existed. On that basis, the assessment and appellate orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of the factual foundation for invoking the valuation provision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment based on the Indian Bureau of Mines rate as a benchmark for the sale price of iron ore, without a categorical finding that the dealer had sold the goods at a higher price than shown, was sustainable and whether the matter required remand.

Analysis: The assessment proceeded on the premise that the ad valorem rate fixed for royalty and comparative prices of other dealers could be used to determine the sale price of the dealer's run of mines. However, no finding was recorded that the dealer had concealed turnover or actually sold the goods at a higher price than disclosed. The later appellate and remand orders for subsequent assessment years had also held that the use of the benchmark without examining the grade of iron ore, the nature of the goods sold, and whether a processing or screening plant existed was not proper. In these circumstances, the same approach adopted for the assessment year in question could not be sustained without fresh examination of the factual basis required for invoking the valuation provision.

Conclusion: The assessment and appellate orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

---