K T KURUVILLA Vs. DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee is aggrieved by the valuation report in respect of the property owned by him and the property being a shopping complex, which was partly under construction as on the date of valuation and situated at 444/8, Main Road, Chalakkudi, in the State of Kerala. Prior to the assessment, the Wealth-tax Officer, having felt the need for valuation report, wrote to the Valuation Officer, under Section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on November 26, 1989. As the report had not been received even by March 26, 1990, he completed the assessment for the assessment year 1985-86 and he estimated the value of this property at Rs. 40 lakhs. Reference made to the valuer was not only for the assessment year 1985-86 but also for subsequent assessment years including the assessment year 1988-89. THE valuer submitted his report on January 18, 1991. As on the date of submission of his report he found that the building was still incomplete and a portion of the building has been let out and some portion was lying vacant, he valued the portion which has been rented out, by adopting the rent capitalisation method and valued the remaining portion by adopting the land and building method. He arrived at Rs. 33 lakhs as the value for the entire property. This amount is lower than the amount as estimated by the Wealth-tax Officer in the wealth-tax assessment for the year 1985-86.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the assessee contended that this report is not in accordance with law and, therefore, cannot be acted upon. His submission was that the reference to the valuer was after the assessment order. That submission is factually incorrect. The valuation report was called for long prior to the making of the assessment order. As the assessment had to be finalised, he proceeded to do so even though the report had not been received. It was open to the assessee to challenge the assessment. It is not clear as to whether the order of assessment was appealed against. So far as the valuation report is concerned, the valuer did not lose jurisdiction on account of the fact that the assessment had been completed for one of the assessment years, even while his report was called for with reference to several assessment years. The reference had been made even before the assessment had been completed in respect of one of the assessment years. Section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act provides for reference by the Assessing Officer. That section does not provide that the Valuation Officer shall not proceed with the valuation if the assessment is completed before the valuation is completed. Section 16A(6) of the Act no doubt provides that the assessment shall be completed in accordance with the valuation made by the Valuation Officer. That provision, however, cannot be read as imposing an embargo on the completion of the assessment, till such time the valuer submits his report. Delay on the part of the valuer, cannot have the effect of deterring the Assessing Officer from proceeding to complete the assessment, and allow the proceeding to be barred by limitation. It is open to the Assessing Officer to invoke Section 35 of the Act after the valuation report is received to correct the value stated in the assessment order in conformity with the valuation made by the Assessing Officer. The reference to the record in Section 35 of the Act would include the report of the Valuation Officer when it is received by the Assessing Officer and is made to form part of the record of assessment. That report being the result of a reference made in the course of the assessment proceedings, the report submitted by the valuer would legitimately be a part of the record. The fact that the valuation report was submitted subsequent to the making of the assessment order for one of the assessment years 1985-86, therefore, does not in any way invalidate the valuation.

(3.) THERE is no merit in this writ petition. The petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,500.