Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The above view was also reiterated by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh (sic Madras) High Court in the case of Commissioner Laxman Das (supra). Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of G. Suresh (supra), had considered similar issue and observed as under :

"Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P6 order issued by the DDI, Investigation, Trivandrum, directing valuation of the petitioner's properties. According to the petitioner, this order was passed under section 131(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, which would not enable the first respondent to order a valuation. Counsel for respondents submitted that under section 131(1)(d) read with section 131(1A) the first respondent has got the power to call for a valuation when he takes up investigation. I have gone through the said provision, especially section 131(1A). Counsel for the department submitted that section 131(1)(d) was misquoted and in any view the first respondent has got jurisdiction under section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act to get a valuation report. Reference was also made to the decision in Jamnadas Madhaiji & Co. v. ITO (1986) 162 ITR 331 (Bom) : TC 60R. 97. I am of the view it is only for the purpose of investigation first respondent called for a valuation report from the 2nd respondent. I do not find any illegality committed by the officer so as to interfere with the direction."