1979 (3) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....--for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1976-77. He filed his returns for the aforesaid assessment years and declared the value of three of his immovable properties consisting of land and buildings at Rs. 3,24,509. One of the three items of the properties disclosed by him in his return was Luxmi Building, 16/103, M. G. Marg, Kanpur. The WTO (respondent No. 3) passed an order making a reference for valuation of the aforesaid property to respondent No. 2, who is Valuation Officer I, Income-tax Department, Kanpur. The remaining two properties were referred for valuation to separate Valuation Officers and we are not concerned in this petition with those properties. Respondent No. 2 issued a notice dated 26th November, 1975, to the petitioner requ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g to him, was of a technical nature and the Valuation Officer had erred in valuing the property. On the 10th August, 1978, the petitioner submitted before the WTO a detailed objection to the report of the Valuation Officer. By means of a communication dated 14th December, 1978, respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that the prayer made in his application dated 13th December, 1977, could not be acceded to because it would amount to referring back the case to the Valuation Officer. In this communication, the WTO expressed the opinion that no such fresh reference could be made to the Valuation Officer under the existing provisions of the Act. On the 24th January, 1979, the petitioner again filed an objection to the report of the Valuation O....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the notice issued under sub-s. (4). The Valuation Officer derives jurisdiction to give a report under sub-s. (5) not by virtue of the notice issued by him under sub-s. (4) of s. 16A but as a consequence of the reference made to him by the WTO and continues to have jurisdiction to act on the basis of such a reference till such time as he has submitted a report under sub-s. (5). It is only after he has submitted a report under sub-s. (5) that he becomes functus officio. The notice issued to the assessee under sub-s. (4) is only a provisional estimate by the Valuation Officer and as long as he is seized of the proceedings, we see no compelling reason to hold that he cannot withdraw an earlier notice and issue a fresh notice disclosing a differ....