The Valuation Officer has jurisdiction to withdraw an earlier notice and issue a fresh notice with a different provisional estimate of the property's value, and the WTO has no option but to pass an order in conformity with the valuation report submitted by the Valuation Officer.

Yashoda Nandan, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed by us in limine by our order dated 15th February, 1979, wherein we stated that we shall give our reasons in support of the order subsequently and we are proceeding to do so.

2. The petitioner is an assessee under the Wealth-tax Act--hereinafter referred to as "the Act"--for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1976-77. He filed his returns for the aforesaid assessment years and declared the value of three of his immovable properties consisting of land and buildings at Rs. 3,24,509. One of the three items of the properties disclosed by him in his return was Luxmi Building, 16/103, M.G. Marg, Kanpur. The WTO (respondent No. 3) passed an order making a reference for valuation of the aforesaid property to respondent No. 2, who is Valuation Officer I, .Income-tax Department, Kanpur. The remaining two properties were referred for valuation to separate Valuation Officers and we are not concerned in this petition with those properties. Respondent No. 2 issued a notice dated 26th November, 1975, to the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why the said property be not valued at Rs. 15,50,000. In pursuance of the notice under Sub-clause (4) of Section 16A of the Act, the petitioner preferred objections on the 15th January, 1976. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 while hearing the objections asked the petitioner to return the notice issued by him dated 26th November, 1975, and assured him that he was satisfied with the objections raised by him and that he would accept the valuation of the authorised valuer, A.T. Patel, which the petitioner had filed along with his return. It is claimed, on the assurance of respondent No. 2, the petitioner returned to him the notice dated 26th November, 1975. Subsequently, a notice dated 1st June, 1977, was served on the petitioner by respondent No. 2 requiring him to show cause why the same property be not valued at Rs, 18,09,000. On the 18th July, 1977, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply in response to the notice and it is claimed that he filed further additional objections on later dates. After hearing the petitioner, respondent No. 2 submitted a report dated 18th September, 1977, to respondent No. 3 valuing the property at Rs. 18,09,000, the amount mentioned by respondent No. 2 in the notice dated 1st June, 1977. By means of an application dated 13th December, 1978, addressed to the WTO (respondent No. 3) the petitioner requested that an opportunity may be given to him to explain his objections before the Valuation Officer as the matter, according to him, was of a technical nature and the Valuation Officer had erred in valuing the property. On the 10th August, 1978, the petitioner submitted before the WTO a detailed objection to the report of the Valuation Officer. By means of a communication dated 14th December, 1978, respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that the prayer made in his application dated 13th December, 1977, could not be acceded to because it would amount to referring back the case to the Valuation Officer. In this communication, the WTO expressed the opinion that no such fresh reference could be made to the Valuation Officer under the existing provisions of the Act. On the 24th January, 1979, the petitioner again filed an objection to the report of the Valuation Officer and while challenging the report made a request that he may be allowed to cross-examine respondent No. 2 so that the correct facts may be brought to the notice of respondent No. 3. It is alleged that till the date of the presentation of the petition in this court respondent No. 3 has not passed any orders and in any event had not communicated to the petitioner the result of his application dated 24th January, 1979, requesting for an opportunity to cross-examine respondent No. 2. On the allegations mentioned above, the petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the no