1991 (2) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Heard the parties. Delay of three days in filing the appeal has been satisfactorily explained and is accordingly condoned. 3. It is agreed by the parties that the valuation estimated by the A.V.O. for the year under consideration was, in fact, at Rs. 2,77,000 as rectified and not at Rs. 2,48,000 as had wrongly been mentioned in the assessment order. That being purely a typographical mistake apparent from record the action of WTO was valid in law. 4. The matter, however, does not end here. In the course of hearing the appeal the assessee had sought permission of the Tribunal to raise the following additional ground, viz."On facts of the case the learned Valuation Officer and the Wealth-tax Officer ought to have valued the surplus l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the doors on parties to raise issues relating to adjudication of their rights and liabilities. Issues which are relevant and material to the just decision of the rights and liabilities of the parties may be allowed to be raised at any time of the proceedings relating to their rights and liabilities. Procedural lapses or mistakes should not result in loss of substantive rights. 8. In the instant case the fact in issue is the valuation of assessee's property, as enhanced by the rectificatory order. The enhanced assessment is to affect tax liability of the assessee. The issue relating to the effect of U.L.C. Act, 1976, being raised through the proposed ground, may affect the valuation of the property in question and consequently the liabil....