TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (3) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It was contended that the valuation of the shares shown in the original estate duty assessment was based on the valuation made by M/s. Lovelock and Lewes, that the said valuation was accepted by the Assistant Controller and that the present rectification proceedings are initiated only due to change of opinion with regard to the valuation of shares. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty did not accept the submissions. He held that there was a mistake apparent from the records. According to the balance-sheet as on December 31, 1967, of M/s. Williamson Magor and Co. Ltd., the break-up value of the shares as per the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, came to Rs. 162.27 per share and not Rs. 101.62 per share. Accordingly, he rectified the estate duty assessment order. He also rectified the excess relief granted under section 50. Against the order of the Assistant Controller made under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, an appeal was preferred to the Appellate Controller by the accountable person. The Appellate Controller held that even if there was a mistake in valuation, it cannot be said that such mistake was apparent from the records as, conceivably, there might be more than one opin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Further, the question of valuation and applicability of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, to the estate duty proceedings formed a highly debatable issue and the provisions of section 61 could not be invoked for the purpose. In reply, the learned departmental representative submitted that, under section 63 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, an appeal lay to the Appellate Tribunal against an order of the Appellate Controller made under section 62. Since the order of the Appellate Controller under appeal was one made under section 62, it was urged that the appeal preferred by the Department was competent and that the respondent's objection should not be entertained. After hearing both the parties to the dispute, the Tribunal decided as follows : "We have considered the rival submissions; The dispute in this case is with regard to the valuation of the shares of M/s. Williamson Magor and Co. Ltd. In the original estate duty assessment order, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty adopted the valuation at Rs. 101.61 per share which has been rectified by an order dated December 28, 1972, made under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, adopting the value at Rs. 162.27 per share. Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d under section 61. There is no obvious mistake which is apparent from the record for invoking the provisions of section 61 of the Act. Further, it was a highly debatable issue whether the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, would be applicable or not to the estate duty proceedings. Thus, the provisions of section 61 cannot be invoked in the present case. In the case of Balaram (T. S.), ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50, 53, the Supreme Court held as under : " It was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions." The above ratio laid down by the Supreme Court clearly applies to the facts of the instant case. Thus, in our view, the Appellate Controller was perfectly justified in cancelling the order made under section 61 to the extent it relates to the valuation of shares of M/s. Williamson Magor and Co. Ltd. We do not find any merit in the appeal. In the resu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 165.28 per share and the second one was on December 28, 1972, when the value adopted was Rs. 162.27. In paragraph 7, it has been stated by the Tribunal that the respondent's valuation was based on the valuer's certificate which was accepted by the Assistant Controller in the original assessment proceedings and that it was not a case where there was an arithmetical mistake in the calculation which could be rectified tinder section 61. The correct position is that the assessee filed a copy of the valuer's report valuing the share at Rs. 99.991 per share but the same was not accepted by the Assistant Controller who valued it at Rs. 101.61 per share. It is requested that the Tribunal may kindly pass an order rectifying the mistakes which have crept in the order." The departmental representative urged that there was a mistake and that the mistake was apparent from the record of the Tribunal and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal should be rectified. The assessee's counsel, on the other hand, urged that there was no mistake and hence the miscellaneous application should be dismissed. The Tribunal observed as follows : " We have considered the rival contentions advanced by bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 1953, I find that the uncashed dividend amounting to Rs. 7,873 has suffered taxation at the time of the original assessment dated March 19, 1971, whereas it has suffered probate duty on uncashed dividend of Rs. 21,034.65 and hence naturally probate duty on the balance uncashed dividend should be deducted from the gross probate duty of Rs. 7,802.50. However, the hearing of the above matter will be taken up on June 6, 1972, at 11 a.m. when you are requested to represent the matter. From the above letter, it would be clear that the case itself proceeded on the basis that the valuation of the shares by M/s. Lovelock and Lewes was accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer and that the Assistant Controller was seeking to revalue the shares under section 61 on the basis of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. The departmental representative did not point out to us at that time that this letter was written under a misapprehension and that the rectification sought to be made by the Assistant Controller under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, was nothing but an attempt to rectify a pure and simple arithmetical error. We, therefore, are not in a position to accept the contention of the dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom Rs. 101.61 to Rs. 162.27. In vain we have searched the record to find out what was the adjustment made in the balance-sheet for arriving at the break-up value. The accountable person was not also informed as to what adjustments were required to be made in the balance-sheet figures for the purpose of arriving at the value of the shares. The Tribunal was not strictly justified in saving that there was a change in the method of valuation but whether, in a particular case, the balance-sheet figures would require adjustment or not would necessarily involve further investigation into facts. There may be also conceivably two opinions on the question whether, on the facts of the particular case, such adjustment was necessary or not, having regard to the nature of the company and its assets. In our view, since there is no intrinsic evidence as to whether such adjustments were made in accordance with any recognised principles and in view of the fact that the accountable person was not given any notice of such adjustment to be made apart from showing that the value of the shares required modification, the order of rectification cannot be sustained. The Assistant Controller in his show-....