TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (2) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ? " Shortly stated, the facts leading to this reference are that the original assessment was made by the Wealth-tax Officer in which he determined the value of the house property at 7, Harrington Street, at figures higher than those returned by the assessee for the four assessment years under appeal. In doing so, he took support from the report given by the Departmental Valuation Officer. The assessee preferred a petition under section 25(1) of the Wealth-tax Act before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax and objected to the valuation made by the Wealth-tax Officer. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, deemed it proper to set aside the assessments and directed the Wealt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of Wealth-tax. It merely meant that the assessments made earlier ceased to exist and, therefore, the Wealth-tax Officer would make fresh assessments in accordance with law. He further observed that non-compliance with the direction of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under section 25(1) of the Act was for reasons beyond the control of the Wealth-tax Officer and, therefore, such non-compliance constituted a mere irregularity but did not make the assessments invalid. Having observed thus, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) confirmed the action of the Wealth-tax Officer. On appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee contended at the very outset that the reassessments made by the Wealth-tax Officer were invalid inasmuch as the speci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such reassessment could not be a sound reason for coming to the conclusion that the reassessments so made by the Wealth-tax Officer were illegal. The Tribunal, therefore, upheld the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) on this issue. At the hearing before us, the same contentions which were urged before the lower authorities had been reiterated. Judicial propriety requires that the Assessing Officer, while making the reassessment in pursuance of the direction of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, must comply with such directions specifically given by the superior authority. In this case, the specific direction was that, in making the reassessment, the report of the Valuation Officer must be considered inasmuch as the valuation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the Wealth-tax Officer failed to carry out the direction of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), the valuation of the house property was not properly determined. However, it would appear from the order of the Tribunal that contention was raised by the assessee that the provisions of section 7(4) of the Act would apply to the facts of the instant case. But this point was not urged before the lower authority and, accordingly, the Tribunal referred the point to the Wealth-tax Officer for his examination as to the applicability of the provisions of section 7(4) of the Act to the case of the assessee and dispose of the point in accordance with the provisions of the relevant section. The question of valuation of the property in question is....