https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55557 The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked jurisdiction to refer the property valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) without fulfilling necessary conditions. The Tribunal ruled that the property valuation should have been done in accordance with Rules 3 to 7 of Schedule III, rejecting the DVO's valuation report treating the property incorrectly. The AO was directed to value the property as per Schedule III rules, reconsider interest levy under Section 17B, and dismissed penalty proceedings under Section 18(1)(c) as the issue was not pursued by the assessee. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Nov 2010 16:54:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55557 The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked jurisdiction to refer the property valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) without fulfilling necessary conditions. The Tribunal ruled that the property valuation should have been done in accordance with Rules 3 to 7 of Schedule III, rejecting the DVO's valuation report treating the property incorrectly. The AO was directed to value the property as per Schedule III rules, reconsider interest levy under Section 17B, and dismissed penalty proceedings under Section 18(1)(c) as the issue was not pursued by the assessee. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55557