COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DIWARI BEN VAGEDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Tax Appeal No. 35 of 2000, following substantial question of law was framed on 1st Feb., 2001 :

(2.) IN another appeal, there is a difference of amount and the year i.e. 1993-94.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed serious error of law and the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse in as much as the Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal by presuming that the AO had not rejected the report of the valuer, which was produced by the Revenue and it is submitted that the Tribunal has also observed that the valuation report given by the assessee is not also complete. In view of the above reasons, the Tribunal has committed error of law by accepting the report given by the valuer whose report was produced by the assessee. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the report of the valuer which was produced by the assessee was ante-dated and therefore, if that report was rejected on this ground also, the AO has not committed any illegality.