TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (4) TMI 66
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....table person and no appeal was filed by her, the Appellate Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in directing investigation into the valuation of land situated to the east of M. B. Garage by entertaining accountable person's plea that the value of the land was less than the value returned by her at Rs. 35,600 thereby giving scope for relief to the respondent-accountable persons in the appeal filed by the department? Lt. Col. B. A. Deodhar expired on October 16, 1967. Respondent, Smt. Leelabai Deodhar, is the accountable person for his estate. The respondent, on February 6, 1969, filed a return of the estate left behind by the deceased. The dispute in the present proceedings relates only to certain piece of land situated to the east of M. B. G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aluer has shown in para. 5.4 of his report. Either the trespasser could be straightway thrown out in such cases if the value of the land would be the full market value less any expenses which may have to be necessarily incurred in the litigation. In the alternative, if it was found that the possession of the trespasser had not matured into ownership under the provisions of section 27 of the Indian Limitation Act, the value obviously would be nil. The dispute has not been considered by any of the authorities below from this angle. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee referred to some entries in the Municipal records, copy whereof had been produced by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to show that land was mentioned as the owner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....smissed. The grievance of the learned counsel for the department was that the accountable person having accepted the valuation determined by the Appellate Controller, inasmuch as no appeal in that behalf was filed, the remand may have the effect of a valuation lower than that now being determined. The further investigation as directed by the Tribunal was felt necessary because of the reasons mentioned in the order. In Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC), their Lordships had construed the meaning of the words " pass such order as the Tribunal thinks fit" in s. 33(4) of the I.T. Act. In that context, their Lordships held that the Tribunal has authority under s. 33 of the Act to direct the AAC or the ITO to hold a further inqui....