https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9797 The High Court upheld the validity of the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, disagreeing with the Tribunal's decision. It affirmed the Commissioner's reliance on the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer for revising the assessment order. The Court also clarified that the Wealth-tax Officer has jurisdiction to refer property valuation to the Valuation Officer even in cases where no return has been filed by the assessee. Additionally, the Court determined that the assessment made by the Wealth-tax Officer was within the limitation period specified under section 17A(1)(b) of the Act. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. en-us Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9797 The High Court upheld the validity of the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, disagreeing with the Tribunal's decision. It affirmed the Commissioner's reliance on the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer for revising the assessment order. The Court also clarified that the Wealth-tax Officer has jurisdiction to refer property valuation to the Valuation Officer even in cases where no return has been filed by the assessee. Additionally, the Court determined that the assessment made by the Wealth-tax Officer was within the limitation period specified under section 17A(1)(b) of the Act. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9797