1991 (2) TMI 166 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's Right to Challenge Land Valuation Upheld by Tribunal

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise an additional ground challenging the valuation of surplus land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, despite ... Immovable Property, Movable Property Issues: Assessment order amendment under section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957; Valuation of immovable property; Permission to raise additional ground challenging valuation under Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976; Entertaining additional ground in appeal; Effect of rectificatory order on assessment enhancement; Right to challenge assessment enhancement; Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider and decide on issues raised in additional ground.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal concerning the amendment of an assessment order under section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, where the WTO rectified the valuation of the assessee's immovable property. The CWT(A) upheld the amended assessment order. The parties agreed that the valuation error in the original assessment order was a typographical mistake, justifying the rectification by the WTO.During the appeal, the assessee sought permission to raise an additional ground challenging the valuation of surplus land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976. The assessee argued that since the assessment was enhanced due to the rectification, they had the right to contest the quantum of enhancement. The Tribunal considered the relevance of the additional ground to the case, despite objections raised by the Departmental Representative.The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses should not impede parties from raising substantial issues relevant to their rights and liabilities. The proposed additional ground, though belated, was deemed crucial for the just decision of the case, especially regarding the valuation of the property in question under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976.Regarding the effect of a rectificatory order on assessment enhancement, the Tribunal clarified that if the amendment results in an enhanced assessment, the assessee has the right to challenge both the jurisdiction of the assessing officer and the quantum of enhancement. The Tribunal asserted its jurisdiction to consider and decide on issues raised in the additional ground, as it was deemed relevant and material to the case.Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise the additional ground and remitted the issue to the first appellate authority for a decision in accordance with the law. The Tribunal approved the exercise of power by the WTO under section 35 but directed further consideration of the valuation issue under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.