M S VASUDEV Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two references under S. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 ("the Act" for short).

(2.) THE question referred for our opinion in both the references, which is common, is as under:

(3.) SRI Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the Revenue, however, contended that, having regard to the undisputed facts of the case, the valuation report which had been called for on 17th Feb., 1976 during the pendency of the assessment proceedings and which was received on 8th June, 1977, subsequent to the passing of the assessment orders, would certainly constitute information regarding the valuation of the building, and, therefore, reassessment could be made, if not under s. 17(1)(a) of the Act, under S. 17(1)(b) of the Act. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in K.G. Kemptur vs. WTO (1984) 39 CTR (Kar) 1 : (1984) 146 ITR 611 (Kar) : TC66R.577. In the said case, this Court held that, unlike a valuation made by a registered valuer, a valuation made by a Valuation Officer to whom reference is made under S. 16A of the Act, was binding on the WTO and he was bound to complete the assessment in conformity with the valuation made by the Valuation Officer and, therefore, the said material would constitute information within the meaning of S. 17(1)(b) of the Act on which the WTO could reopen the assessment. It was laid down that, while it was open to the assessee to contest the correctness of the report of the Valuation Officer in appropriate legal proceedings, as far as the WTO was concerned, it was binding. Similar view was also taken in Amrut Talkies vs. ITO (1984) 150 ITR 386 (Kar) : TC51R.1574. It was a case under S. 147 of the IT Act. The question for consideration was whether the assessment which had been made on the basis of a report of a registered valuer regarding cost of construction of a theatre can be reopened on the basis of a subsequent report of the Official Valuer estimating the cost of construction at a higher rate and whether the latter constitutes "information" for purposes of reassessment under S. 147(b) of the Act. Following the judgment in K.G. Kemptur vs. WTO (supra) referred to above, the question was answered in the affirmative.