COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. PRAMILABEN CHUNIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court under S. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 :

(2.) THE assessee was the owner of a property used for self occupation on the five relevant valuation dates, namely 31st March, 1969, 31st March, 1970, 31st March, 1971, 31st March, 1972 and 31st March, 1973. The WTO completed assessments for five years adopting values for the said property at Rs. 2,00,000, Rs. 2,00,000, Rs. 2,25,000, Rs. 2,40,000, and Rs. 2,50,000, respectively as against the values declared by the assessee at Rs. 1,48,800, Rs. 1,48,000, Rs. 1,75,300, Rs. 1,75,300 and Rs. 1,75,300, for the respective years.

(3.) ,05,600, the assessee had returned a much lower value for the property for all the years and even though the WTO had adopted the value of the property higher than the returned value and did not accept the value determined by the approved valuer, he did not make a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer under S. 16A of the Act. The CWT, therefore, after hearing the assessee, set aside the assessment orders and directed the WTO to reframe the assessments adopting the correct value of the property after making a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer under S. 16A of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeals to the Tribunal against the common orders made by the CWT and the Tribunal cancelled the orders of CWT by allowing the assessee's appeals. The Accountant Member and the Judicial Member dictated separate orders, which are described in the statement of case as "concurring orders". Paragraphs 4, 4A and 5 of the said order, contained the reasons and findings given by the Accountant Member, while paragraphs 8 to 16 contained the reasons and findings of the Judicial Member.