TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 74
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... years are 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. The valuation dates for the three years, respectively, are Aso Vad Amas of Samvat Years 2035, 2036 and 2037, the corresponding dates being October 27, 1979, November 7, 1980 and October 27, 1981. The assessee filed his returns of wealth for all the three years. The wealth consisted of movable and immovable properties. The assessee was having partnership share in a firm known as M/s. Gum Products; the share was 31 per cent, for the assessment year 1980-81, and 12 per cent, for each of the remaining two assessment years. The partnership firm was the owner of an immovable property known as "Ellisbridge Milkiat" and the said property was valued at Rs. 21,641 in each of the three years. The basis of arriv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecember 21, 1987, the Assessing Officer wrote to the assessee to show cause as to why appropriate action should not be initiated, because in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the value of the share in Ellisbridge Milkiat property had been shown by the assessee at a lesser figure as against the correct market value. The assessee tendered his explanation by letter dated nil. The Tribunal has recorded that thereafter whether any further proceedings took place or not, is not available on the record. However, on October 13, 1988, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax initiated action under section 25(2) of the Act, as according to him, the assessments framed on November 24,1986, were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vember 24, 1986, were passed for a limited purpose and the assessment of the property in question had been made on March 15, 1985, March 25, 1986 and March 25, 1986. Therefore, according to the Tribunal, the Commissioner could not have invoked his powers under section 25(2) of the Act in the light of the statutory period of limitation of two years. The Tribunal further held on the merits of the controversy that it was not in dispute that the Ellisbridge Milkiat property had been acquired in 1960 and had remained since then a tenanted property. That there were disputes between the landlord and the tenants regarding eviction and on the respective valuation dates, the matter of eviction of the tenants was sub judice in revisional proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the property was sold, did not represent the fair market value of the property in question on the relevant valuation dates. Once this is the position, and it was not disputed on behalf of the Revenue, that this is a finding of fact, it is not possible to uphold the action of the Commissioner under section 25(2) of the Act. The entire basis for initiating action under section 25(2) of the Act is the agreement for sale entered into on September 3, 1981. At the cost of repetition, it is required to be stated that the Tribunal has found that the said amount mentioned in the agreement for sale did not represent the correct fair market value of the property on the relevant valuation dates and the Revenue has not been able to point out any materi....