Tribunal rules on rectification under section 35, emphasizes need for more than a change of opinion.

The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, ruling that rectification under section 35 cannot be solely based on a change of opinion when two reasonable views exist, and the original assessment was made considering the pending dispute before the High Court. The Department's appeals were dismissed, affirming the cancellation of the rectification order.

---

---

Issues:
Departmental appeal against rectification order under section 35 of the WT Act, 1957 - Valuation of right to receive compensation for acquired lands - Application of principles from Supreme Court decisions - Mere change of opinion versus mistake apparent on record - Dispute regarding compensation amount pending before High Court.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to departmental appeals related to the assessment years 1975-76 to 1981-82 concerning the valuation of lands acquired by the Government. The Sub-Divisional Officers initially fixed compensation for the lands, which was later enhanced by the Civil Court and further appealed by the Government to the High Court. The assessee had offered Rs. 1,11,154 for taxation based on the Sub-Divisional Officer's award, excluding the Civil Court's compensation pending finalization. The WTO rectified the original assessment orders to value the lands at Rs. 5,40,677 based on the Civil Court's order, which was under appeal. The assessee appealed this rectification order before the AAC.

Before the AAC, the assessee relied on the Supreme Court decision in T.S. Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers and Ors., arguing that there was no mistake apparent on record in the original assessment orders but a mere change of opinion. The AAC accepted the assessee's submission, canceling the rectification order, citing the need for the WTO to consider various factors in valuing the right to receive compensation. The AAC referenced the Supreme Court's guidance on estimating property value, emphasizing the need to account for factors like marketability and litigation risks.

The Department appealed the AAC's decision, raising grounds that the rectification under section 35 was justified based on the Civil Court's decision and the guidelines provided by the High Court. However, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeals, applying principles from Supreme Court decisions that rectification cannot be based on a mere change of opinion and must involve a mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal noted that at the time of the original assessment, the facts were known to the WTO, who valued the lands based on the Sub-Divisional Officer's award, considering the pending dispute before the High Court. The Tribunal concluded that rectification on the basis of the Civil Court's order was a change of opinion, not a mistake apparent on record, as there were two possible views on the valuation. The uncertainty of the pending High Court decision further supported the rejection of rectification.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, emphasizing that rectification under section 35 cannot be based on a mere change of opinion when two plausible views exist, and when the original assessment was reasonable given the circumstances of the pending dispute before the High Court. The Department's appeals were dismissed, affirming the cancellation of the rectification order.

---