TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (1) TMI 118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hown by the assessee's valuer ?" The assessee was assessed under the Wealth-tax Act ("the Act" for short) with reference to the valuation date March 31, 1970 and March 31, 1971. We are concerned with the property situated in Kothari Road, Madras. The said property was valued at Rs. 2,04,943. Subsequently, the property was sold by the assessee. The estate of the purchaser was the subject-matter of valuation with reference to August, 1971. The property was valued at Rs. 2,67,000. From this, the assessing authority worked backwards to arrive at the value of the property as on March 31, 1970 and March 31, 1971 respectively, and arrived at the value as Rs. 2,25,630 and Rs.2,46,370, respectively, for the two dates. This valuation was based on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ; instead he proceeded to accept the valuation furnished by the assessee. The present revaluation of the property is again based on the opinion furnished by the Valuation Officer with reference to a different date altogether from which the Revenue sought to work backwards to estimate the value once again. It is well known that arithmetical accuracy in valuation of property is impractical. More than one view as to the value of a property would be there, always. While one valuer estimates the value at rupees one lakh, another has valued it at Rs. 90,000 or even at Rs. 1,15,000. It is said that value is generally subjective, and the "price" is objective. Therefore, an estimated price is the result of subjective evaluation of objective facts. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r allied tax legislations. Parliament has recognised the inevitability of differences in the estimation of the fair market value of immovable property. The question posed for the court's answer has to be considered in this background. But the question is whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the opinion of the valuer is information so as to call for the exercise of the power as provided in section 17(1)(b) ; when an assessee had disclosed facts fully and furnished a value which is reasonably nearer to the fair market value, just because another valuer has opined the value slightly higher, will it be information ? A few decisions cited before us will be considered in this connection. Learned counsel for the Revenue referred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt cinema theatre and not to its market value. It can be noted here itself that the margin of difference in estimating the cost of construction by two valuers cannot be of the same degree as involved in the estimate of the market value of a property. The decision arises out of a writ petition filed against the issuance of the notice itself. Therefore, there was no occasion for the authorities under the Act to finally decide the question. The cost of construction furnished by the assessee was Rs. 4,79,050 as against the valuation report of Rs. 6,12,000. Another decision of this court is reported in K. G. Kemptur v. Second WTO [1984] 146 ITR 611. This again arose out of a writ petition challenging the notice issued under section 17 of the Act....