1989 (3) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of by this common order. 2. This is a case of reopening of the assessment under s. 17(1)(a). The assessee had at first submitted a certain valuation of his immovable property supported by a Valuation report. The WTO made the assessment under s. 16(3). Subsequently he came to know about sale of land in the same locality as that the assessee and the sale price has been much higher than that show....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hree transactions of land on the valuation date in the same locality the case was referred to the Valuation Officer. Thus, according to the WTO, the case was not reopened on the strength of valuation report, but the valuation itself was based on the information in the possession of the WTO which was derived from external sources and so not a mere change of opinion. According to the WTO since the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was without jurisdiction and invalid. (4) The assessee-HUF was disrupted by partition at the time of reassessment proceedings and so the notice under s. 17 could not be issued to it. The AAC allowed the assessee's appeal on the ground that the WTO was not justified in reframing the assessment for any of the years as the reference to the Valuation Officer was made after the completion of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in support of his submission that the reference to the Valuation Officer could not be made after the assessment was completed. He also relied upon the decision in CWT vs. Smt. Gulnar Marfatia (1986) 159 ITR 311 (Raj). He submitted that the original assessment was under s. 16(3) and all the facts were supplied and the WTO had finalised the assessment after making an estimate. 6. Now, in the orig....