TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (1) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....979-80 against Rs. 13,21,000 as valued by the approved valuer. Hence, the same has escaped assessment. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that issuance of notice in the present case under section 17(1) of the Act is nothing but abuse of power by the concerned officer. For this purpose, he relied upon the fact that, in the wealth-tax returns submitted by the petitioner and the assessment orders for the aforesaid two assessment years, the Wealth-tax Officer has considered the valuation report submitted by the agricultural approved valuer and, after taking into consideration the said report, appropriate assessment order have been passed under section 16(3) of the Act. He further submitted that not only this, but against t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 17, 1974, it is valued at Rs. 13,31,030 and against that the petitioner has valued it only at Rs. 3,66,732. The relevant part of the said order is as under. "H. H. Wadiwala died on November 4, 1974, but his estate was pending execution because probate was not received from the court. The assessee holds agricultural land in Odhav and at Behrampura, Suez Farm, and building, bank balances, etc. It was noticed that the valuation of the total land for the assessment year 1979-80 belonging to the assessee is Rs. 13,31,030 as against Rs. 3,66,732 as shown by the assessee, as per the valuation report dated November 17, 1974. In this year also, the assessee has shown the same value. It was contended by the assessee that the value of landed proper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... conclusion that it was not an asset of the assessee because the petitioner was in adverse possession of the lands and that his interest in the lands was precarious. The relevant discussion is as under : "The third ground relates to the valuation of Suez Farm lands at Rs. 80,000. The appellant had shown the value of these lands at 'Nil' for this year as in all the preceding years because the appellant was in adverse possession of these lands and, therefore, his interest in these lands was precarious. It was not his asset. For the reasons given in my appeal order dated March 4, 1985 in Appeal No. IV-E/25/84-85, I hold that Suez Farm lands did not constitute the appellant's asset. The addition of Rs. 80,000 is deleted." Further, it should b....