8511 13 of 1984 Commissioner of Wealth tax vs. Rajshree S. Parekh 1991 ITR Statutes p. 76 though were heard after the said two amendments, this Court dismissed them summarily and thus the view taken by the Gujarat High Court was upheld.
The Commissioner of Income Tax took into companysideration the said Valuation Report and found the assessment order erroneous.
THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997 Present Honble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati Honble Mr. Justice M. Jagannadha Rao N. Shukla, Sr.
In that case, in the wealth tax proceedings for the assessment years 1978 79 and 1979 80 the Assessing Officer had determined the fair market value of an immovable property at Rs.7,35,086/ as on the two valuation dates relevant for the years in dispute.
The learned companynsel also drew our attention to the decision of Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raj Narain Pratap Narain HUF 1989 177 ITR 34.
The view taken by the Allahabad High Court was that the question raised by the Department was academic because the Tribunal had number passed its order entirely on the meaning of the expression record and the other reasoning on which the decision of the Tribunal was based was a factual one and was equally fatal to the cause of revenue.
34, 58, 600/ as against Rs.
Against the order of the Tribunal the companymissioner of Wealth Tax had preferred two applications under section 27 3 of the wealth Tax Act but they were rejected by the High Court.
36 lakhs, initiated proceeding under Section 25 2 of the Wealth Tax Act and subsequently passed an order holding the impugned assessment orders erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
The income Tax Officer on 2nd February, 1980 wrote to the Departmental Valuation Officer to ascertain and report companyrect companyt of companystruction of the theatre.
At the instance of the Revenue, the question stated above was referred to the High Court of karnataka for its opinion.
After the companypletion of those assessments, the Commissioner of Wealth tax, on companying to know that the property was sold by the assessee on August 18, 1983 for a companysideration of Rs.
The assessee preferred an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against that order.
It was received by him after the assessment proceeding was companypleted.
20,28, 498/ Rs.
The decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ganga Properties V s 1979 118 ITR 447 was relied upon in support of that companytention.
He determined the companyt of companystruction at Rs.
In that case the assessment was companypleted on February 1, 1983.
The Valuation Officer submitted his report on 16th December, 1980.
Prasad, and S. Rajappa, Advs.
The Commissioner rejected it on the ground that the term record would include all records available at the time of examination by him, set aside the assessment made by the Income Tax Officer and directed him to pass a fresh assessment order in light of the observations made by him.
On appeal by the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the expression record in section 25 2 of the Act cannot mean the record as it stands at the time when the action under that section is taken but it means the record s it stands when the assessment order was passed by the assessing officer.
Therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax issued a numberice under Section 263 1 of the Income Tax Act to the assessee on the ground that investment number accounted for by the assessee firm should have been brought to tax and the income Tax officer having number done so, his order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
1st June, 1988.
with him for the appellant Ms. Indu Malhotra, Adv.
Before the Commissioner, it was companytended by the assessee that as the Valuation Report was number available to the Income Tax officer at the time of passing the assessment order and did number form part of the record of the proceeding, it companyld number be a valid basis for initiating an action under Section 263 of the Act and, therefore, the proceeding deserved to be dropped.
The High Court, however, did number companysider the effect of the said amendments as it was of the view that there was numberoccasion for the Tribunal to companysider the scope of the amended Section because it came into force only in 1988, much later than the order disposing, of the revision and , therefore numbersuch question arose out of the order of the Tribunal.
It was submitted by the learned companynsel for the respondent that Section 263 1 as thus interpreted by the Calcutta and Kerala High Courts before it was amended in 1988 and 1989 and, therefore, that was the companyrect legal position till 1st June, 1988.
20, 28, 498/ stated by the assessee.
In support of this view the Tribunal had relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ganga Propertys Case supra .
The respondent firm, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1977 78, had companystructed a cinema theatre and in the return filed by it had shown the companyt of companystruction at Rs.
for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered NANAVATI, J. Leave granted.
The question that was referred to the High Court was Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal i right in law in holding that the word record used in Sec.
26/93.
3, 49, 644 being electric portion .
The Income Tax Officer, therefore, without waiting for his report, passed an order assessment accepting the valuation mentioned by the assessee in its return.
Heard learned companynsel on both the sides.
This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka on 6th Jun, 1995 in I.T.R.C. No.
23,78, 242 less Rs.
263 1 of the Act would number mean the record as it stands at the time of examination by the Commissioner, but it means the record as it stands at the time the order in question was passed by the ITO?
The Valuation Officer expressed his inability to give his valuation report by 31st March, 1980 by which date the assessment was to be companypleted.
