1995 (4) TMI 43

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ards the building construction. The building is a multi-storeyed office complex. As per the books of account, a total investment of Rs. 52,16,035 was disclosed. The construction was over and the petitioner got the building valued by an Approved Valuer. A detailed valuation was made by the valuer and he estimated the value of the building at Rs. 53,30,672. The building was constructed with financial assistance from the Bank of Baroda. The bank, as financing agency, had conducted periodical valuation or the building by its registered architect who estimated the cost of the building at Rs. 50,45,000. The investments made by the co-owners had been duly included in their respective wealth-tax returns and they have been accordingly assessed. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s per exhibit P-3 order, held that the finding of the District Valuation Officer is wrong as it is not based on any reasoning. Exhibit P-3, the valuation report of the District Valuation Officer, was dubbed as wide of the mark since the additions are primarily based on the ad hoc plinth area rates adopted by the District Valuation Officer. The first respondent further goes on to say that the report of the District Valuation Officer cannot be relied upon and hence, the Assessing Officer has gone wrong in banking on the report to assess the petitioner. In the result, as per exhibit P-3, the first respondent set aside the order of assessment passed against the petitioner with a direction to complete the assessment de novo in accordance with la....