Valuation cannot be enhanced without notice where the accepted value is supported by record and no prejudice is shown.

Valuation based on a Chartered Engineer's certificate and the record was not reopened at the Revenue's instance because no show cause notice on valuation had been issued to the assessee. The attempted enhancement was rejected as it would have prejudiced a party not put to notice, and the Revenue had not shown why the accepted value was unacceptable or what the correct value should be. The objection that the appellate order was vitiated by absence of a personal hearing also failed, since the underlying procedural lapse lay with the Revenue itself. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the valuation sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the valuation adopted by the primary adjudicating authority and upheld in appeal could be disturbed on the Revenue's challenge; and (ii) whether the absence of a personal hearing to the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) vitiated the appellate order.

Issue (i): whether the valuation adopted by the primary adjudicating authority and upheld in appeal could be disturbed on the Revenue's challenge.

Analysis: The valuation was adopted on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's certificate and the material available on record. No show cause notice on valuation had been issued to the respondent, and the Revenue's challenge did not demonstrate why the valuation accepted by the adjudicating authority was unacceptable or what the correct value should have been. Enhancement of value at a later stage would have been prejudicial to the respondent, who had not been put to notice on that issue. In these circumstances, the valuation could not be reopened merely on the Revenue's objections to the certificate format.

Conclusion: The challenge to valuation was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the absence of a personal hearing to the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) vitiated the appellate order.

Analysis: The grievance regarding denial of hearing could not succeed because the fundamental procedural lapse had been committed earlier by the Revenue itself in not issuing a show cause notice on valuation. A party that has itself disregarded natural justice at the initial stage cannot later object on the same ground. The appellate order therefore was not vitiated on this count.

Conclusion: The objection based on absence of personal hearing was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal failed in entirety and the valuation adopted below was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A party that has not issued a show cause notice on a disputed valuation cannot later seek enhancement of value or complain of denial of hearing where the adopted valuation is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

---