https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23884 The court rejected the reference application, emphasizing that the questions raised were covered by previous judgments and did not present new legal issues. It held that the Wealth-tax Officer was not bound by the Valuation Officer's report, citing the officer's quasi-judicial discretion under section 16A(1). The court highlighted that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer and that once the Wealth-tax Officer acted on such directions, the order merged with the Commissioner's order, precluding revision. The court concluded that the reference application did not raise any substantial question of law and rejected it. en-us Tue, 03 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:45:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23884 The court rejected the reference application, emphasizing that the questions raised were covered by previous judgments and did not present new legal issues. It held that the Wealth-tax Officer was not bound by the Valuation Officer's report, citing the officer's quasi-judicial discretion under section 16A(1). The court highlighted that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer and that once the Wealth-tax Officer acted on such directions, the order merged with the Commissioner's order, precluding revision. The court concluded that the reference application did not raise any substantial question of law and rejected it. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Tue, 03 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23884