2008 (4) TMI 152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... figures are supported by valuation report of registered valuer and the Wealth-tax Officer has not made a reference to the valuation cell, then the assessee's figures are required to be accepted? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sale consideration of plot 'A' would not be relevant for the purpose of determining the valuation of the adjoining plot, i.e., 'B' vis-a-vis the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 and subsequent to the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 ?" 2. In our opinion, the second question is consequential to the first question and if we decide the first question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "16A. Reference to Valuation Officer.— (1) For the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment in respect of any assessment year commencing before the date of coming into force of this section) under this Act, where under the provisions of section 7 read with the rules made under this Act, or, as the case may be, the rules in Schedule III, the market value of any asset is to be taken into account in such assessment, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of any asset to a Valuation Officer— (a) in a case where the value of the asset as returned is in accordance with the estimate made by a registered valuer, if the Assessing Officer is of opinion that the value so returned is less than its fair market value &n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ourt in Raj Paul Oswal v. CWT [1988] 171 ITR 489, wherein it held as follows (page 493) "In our view, there is no merit in the stand taken on behalf of the Revenue. In our view, the provisions of section 16A(1), clause (b), when read with rule 3B, ibid, mandatorily require the Wealth-tax Officer to make a reference." 12. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in CWT v. L. N. Ahuja [2000] 159 Taxation 446 (Delhi). It is obvious that the legislative intent was not to give unbridled discretion to the Wealth-tax Officer whether to make a reference to the Valuation Officer or not. No doubt, the word "may" has been used. However, keeping in view the context in which it has been used and the nature of clauses (a) and (b) of s....