SHANTILAL BHOGILAL JHAVERI VS C.L. BHATIA, FIFTH WTO, 1992 PTD-BOMBAY-HIGH-COURT-INDIA 1035 (1990)

Wealth tax---

---- Valuation of property---Reference to Valuation Officer---Reference made after completion of assessment---Not valid.

A reference made by the Wealth Tax Officer under section 16-A of the Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, to a Valuation Officer for valuation of property after the assessment has been completed is not valid.

Smt. Bella Cajeton Travasso v. Third Wealth Tax Officer (1987) 166 ITR 49 (Born.) fol.

Dilip Dwarkadas instructed by M/s.Kanga & Co. for Petitioners. Dr. V. Balasubramanian for Respondents.

JUDGMENT

The challenge in this petition is to the reference to the District Valuation Officer by the Wealth Tax Officer, - C.I. Ward, Bombay, under section 16-A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, for determination of the value of the property in dispute. The reference was made on January 6, 1981. Notices under section 16-A and under section 16-A(4) have been issued by the Valuation Officer on January 21, 1981, and February 20, 1981. The proceedings relate to the assessment years 1972-73 to 1980-81. It is common ground that, at the time the Wealth Tax Officer referred the case to the District Valuation Officer under Section 16-A, the assessments for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76 had already been completed. The first question is whether the reference made by the Wealth Tax Officer, under section 16-A to a District Valuation Officer for valuation of the property after the assessments have been completed is valid. This issue is covered by our Courts' decision in the case of Smt. Bella Gajeton Travasso v. Third WTO (1987) 166 ITR 49. It is held that a reading of the provisions of section 16-A makes it clear that before the assessment is finalised, if the Wealth-tax Officer is of the opinion, having regard to the nature of the assets and other relevant circumstances, that it is necessary to refer the question of valuation of any assets to the Valuation Officer, then it is permissible for him to do so. Admittedly, the reference in this case was made to the valuer under section 16-A only after the assessments were completed. It must, therefore, be held that the reference to the valuer under section 16-A in so far as it pertains to the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76 is invalid.

As regards the assessment years 1976-77 to 1980-81, Dr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Department, stated that the assessments had, in fact, been completed, by valuing the property in dispute in accordance with Rule 1-BB of the Wealth Tax Rules and in fact, the petitioners' valuation for the respective years was accepted. However, the assessment orders so passed could not be served on the petitioner, in view of the interim stay granted by this Court. In the above view of the matter, nothing survives in this petition so far as the proceedings for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1980-81 are concerned.

In the result, the rule is made absolute in so far as it pertains to the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76. For the assessment years 1976-77 to 1980-81, the petition has become infructuous, and the rule accordingly is discharged.

No order as to costs.

M.BA./1567/TOrder accordingly.