TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (5) TMI 81
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidence and the assessee disclosed the value of the property for both the years at Rs. 66,667 which had been accepted by the WTO in the yr. 1971-72. Since exemption was claimed for the said property under s. 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act which was duly allowed it should be taken that the WTO had accepted the value of his 1/3rd interest shown by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1976- 77. The WTO had therefore, wrongly taken the value of the assessee's interest at Rs. 2,86,677 because in the earlier year, the AAC, R-XIII had already reduced the value of the entire property to Rs. 3,94,000 by his order dt. 9th Jan., 1981. For the asst. yr. 1977-78, the WTO had referred the matter to the Valuation Officer who has estimated the value as on 31st March, 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls before us. 3. At the time of the hearing of these appeals, it was pointed out by the representative of the department that the Valuation Officer was not present and a notice should be issued to him also. We, however, found that the notice had been issued to the Valuation Officer twice by registered post and according to the Commentary at p. 1267 of Kanga & Palkhivala in their Law & Practice of Income-tax, it has been observed that there is a presumption of effective service if notice was properly addressed, prepaid and posted by registered post. We, therefore, do not think it fit to adjourn the hearing of this case to give another notice to the Valuation Officer, more particularly when on the last hearing, the Departmental Representat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under s. 16A(1) or 16A(2) or 16A(4) was not valid so far as the years 1967-68 to 1974-75 were concerned. But so far as the asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1976-77 were concerned. The conclusion of their Lordships was that the Valuation Officer could proceed in accordance with law. What we mean to say is that the reference to the Valuation Officer was held to be invalid only qua the years for which assessments had already been completed. Now there is no dispute that the assessments for the two years in question i.e., 1976-77 and 1977- 78 had not been completed by the WTO. What was completed was only the assessment for the year 1971-72. Therefore, what was binding upon the department was the finding that the assessee's interest in the property had be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of reopening the assessment under s. 17(1) as information within the meaning of cl. (b) thereof. What their Lordships held was that this reopening on the basis of that report was not permissible. On the other hand, the Calcutta High Court in the case of Satyendra Ch. Ghose, had itself held that a reference could have been permissible for the purpose of reopening of the assessment, but since the assessment were not being sought to be reopened under s. 17, the reference to the Valuation Officer qua these assessments was invalid. For reopening the same, the opinion of their Lordships was that a reference to the Valuation Officer might have been possible, but when the assessment itself is pending, obviously there could be not bar to making a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....record. What follows from this case is that the report of the Valuation Officer would not be reference to the Valuation Officer itself would be bad in law. 5. It was next argued that the actual market value of the property determined by the Valuation Officer as on 31st March, 1971 was not more than two lakhs and for this purpose, arguments relating to the location of the property, the scattered nature of the open land, the small frontage which it had and the deduction for joint ownership as urged before the AAC, were reiterated. We however, find that the AAC has not considered this aspect of the matter. He has also not expressed any opinion as to what had happened in relation to the other co-sharers of the assessee and what was the value....