1999 PLP 2754 (PTD)

The petitioner filed a writ petition and contended that the report of the Valuation Officer was binding on the Income-tax Officer and proceedings for valuation being quasi judicial, a writ of certiorari there against was maintainable. The Revenue opposed the admission of the writ petition on the ground that an alternative efficacious remedy of challenging the valuation report in appeal to be preferred against the order of assessment was available to the petitioner ant therefore, the writ petition did not lie. The Revenue further contended that during the pendency of the writ petition, the assessment itself had been finalised in conformity with the valuation report. This fact was not disputed by the petitioner who stated that the order of assessment had been communicated to him: Held, that since the assessment, had been finalised and an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal, wherein the report of the Valuation Officer could be challenged, was available to the petitioner, the writ petition was not maintainable. CWT v. Dr. H. Rahman (1991) 189 ITR 307 (All.) and Wenger & Co.. v. District Valuation Officer (1978) 115 ITR 648 (Delhi) ref. Ajay Kumar for Petitioner. R.D. Jolly with Ms. Premlata Bansal for Respondent. The petition is directed against the report of the Valuation Officer, dated March 18, 1997, made on a reference under section 55-A of the Income-tax Act. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the report of the Valuation Officer is binding on the Income-tax Officer and proceedings for valuation being quasi judicial, a writ of certiorari there against is maintainable. Reliance is placed on Wenger & Co. v. District Valuation Officer (1978) 115 ITR 648 (Delhi). Senior standing counsel for the respondents has opposed the admission of the petition submitting that alternative efficacious remedy of challenging the valuation report in appeal to be preferred against the order of assessment is available to the petitioner and, therefore, the petition does not lie. Reliance is placed on CWT v. Dr. H. Rahman (1991) 189 ITR 307 (All.). He also pointed out that during the pendency of this petition, on April 28, 1997, the assessment itself has been finalised on April 28, 1997, in conformity with the valuation report. This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner who states that subsequently, in the month of May, 1997, the order of assessment has been communicated to the petitioner. We express no opinion on .the question whether the report of the Valuation Officer is binding on the Assessing Income-tax Officer or not. On the short question that the assessment having been finalised and an alternate efficacious remedy of filing an appeal wherein challenge can be led to the report of the Valuation Officer is available to the petitioner, the petition is dismissed in limine. It would be open to the appellate authority to go into the pleas raised by the petitioner against the valuation report. M.B.A./3022/FC Order accordingly.