https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188449 The Court held that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) was not required to provide a hearing before appointing the Valuation Officer to verify the respondent's valuation. It was deemed that the initial step of issuing a commission did not necessitate a prior hearing as the Valuation Officer's role was to confirm the valuation, not prejudge it. The Court found the ITO justified in seeking assistance from the Valuation Officer to determine the fair market value of a capital asset, in line with statutory provisions. The notice issued by the ITO for valuation by the Valuation Officer was deemed valid, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 04 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Dec 2016 12:25:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188449 The Court held that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) was not required to provide a hearing before appointing the Valuation Officer to verify the respondent's valuation. It was deemed that the initial step of issuing a commission did not necessitate a prior hearing as the Valuation Officer's role was to confirm the valuation, not prejudge it. The Court found the ITO justified in seeking assistance from the Valuation Officer to determine the fair market value of a capital asset, in line with statutory provisions. The notice issued by the ITO for valuation by the Valuation Officer was deemed valid, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188449