ORDER–Two valuation reports–WTO accepting the one valued at higher price–Order cannot be termed erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue warranting revision by CWT.
Wealth Tax Act 1957 s.25(2)
JUDGMENT
B.N. Kirpal, J.
(1) The petitioner seeks reference of the following two questions: “(I)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct, in not upholding the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under Section 25(2) of the W.T. Act. 1957 ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the instructions of the Ministry of Works and Housing were not on record when it was a general circular Published in the Official Gazette and as such did exist at the time of framing the assessment and the assessing officer was required to have knowledge of the same ?”
(2) In the present case, the question involved is with regard to the valuation of the property situates at 39, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. This property is industrial and before the Assessing Officer, a valuation report prepared by a registered valuer had been furnished by the assessed.
(3) The Wealth Tax Officer accepted the report of the registered valuer and computed the net wealth of the assessed.
(4) The Commissioner of Wealth Tax then instituted proceedings under Section 25(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. He came to the conclusion that the Wealth Tax Officer did not take into consideration the fact that a letter dated 27th June, 1979 issued by the Ministry of Works and Housing bad valued the commercial property in Najaf Garh area atl800.00 per Sq. Yard. He further held that the Dda had also fixed the land prices for industrial plots in the area which varied from Rs. 191 to Rs. 210/” per Sq. Mt. and in respect of commercial properties, the prices had been fixed by the Dda varying from Rs. 287.00 tors. 3l5.00 per Sq. Mt. He also took into account that another valuer, appointed by the assessed, had valued the land at Rs. 200.00 per Sq. Mt. in respect of the area found within the limit permissible under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and he had valued the surplus land at Rs.10/’per Sq. Mt. The Commissioner then concluded that the Department did not have a chance to look at the valuation report and to get the land valued. The order of the Wealth Tax Officer was accordingly set aside.
(5) The Tribunal, in an appeal filed before it, came to the conclusion that the order of the Commissioner was erroneous. It also held that the Commissioner had not given any express findings that the Wealth Tax Officer had failed to make any inquiry or that his orders were erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
(6) Being aggrieved, the Commissioner filed the application under Section 27(1) for referring the aforesaid two questions to this Court. The Tribunal, however, rejected the said application.
(7) It is contended before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commissioner was fully justified inexercising his jurisdiction under Section 25(2) and when he came to the conclusion that the order of the Wealth Tax Officer should be set aside, the Tribunal ought not to have quashed the order of the Commissioner.
(8) It is true that ordinarily the Commissioner has been given jurisdiction to examine, under Section 25(2), whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, but in the instant case, however, the Commissioner has nowhere formed an opinion that the assessment order was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Apart from that jurisdictional infirmity, the Commissioner overlooked the fact that the rate of Rs. 1800.00 per Sq. Yard was in respect of the commercial property. The Commissioner himself has referred to two different rates fixed by the Dda in respect of industrial land and commercial land.