It seems that in view of the aforesaid eyesight, there is great difficulty in accepting the appellants' version as to the condition of the apartment at the time of purchase, including that it is not possible to give evidentiary weight to the photographs that the appellant attached to his affidavit.
- I did not find any basis for the appellants' claim that relies on the value of the apartment. The appellants claimed that the apartment was sold for a value much lower than the value of the finished apartment, but this claim was made without any proof. On the other hand, the respondent presented a similar apartment on the first floor of the same building that on January 11,2022, was sold for ILS 8,250,000, and was reported by both parties as a "residential apartment". As may be recalled, the appellants' apartment was purchased for a higher price. In addition, I did not find any merit in the appellants' claim that the respondent ignored a conversation that took place with the executing contractor. The appellant stated in the conversation that an apartment was delivered that was not perfect, but the fact that the apartment was required for completion does not mean that it was a "shell apartment" as clarified above. In any event, insofar as the appellants believed that his testimony supported their version, it would have been appropriate for them to take action to summon him to testify.
- I have given my attention to the appellants' arguments regarding the defects they claimed in the assessment proceeding. Although I do not believe that in the case at hand these defects are capable of changing the outcome of the appeal, I am of the opinion that there is no choice but to reiterate that the respondent, as an administrative authority, had a duty to act lawfully and summon the appellants to a hearing of their objection and to allow the exercise of the right to plead as it should be. A hearing on the objection, as well as in stage A, must be held in person and not by telephone conversation. As I noted only recently (Appeals Committee (Center) 45230-06-22 Pinchas Salem v. Netanya Real Estate Taxation Administration (July 13,2026)): "In the absence of a provision in law that allows the respondent to hold a telephone hearing on an assessment or objection - the respondent must act lawfully and summon a taxpayer for a frontal hearing of the assessment or objection." Therefore, in the absence of any legal source, what the respondent calls a telephone "hearing" is not a lawful assessment hearing, but only a "conversation", and since the impression remains that the respondent continues to act in this manner, despite what was stated in the Appeals Committee's ruling, it is not impossible that this conduct may ultimately lead to the result of the disqualification of the assessment proceeding.
In the present case, the appellant indeed confirmed in his testimony that he was not prevented from submitting any document or evidence that he wished to submit (pp. 34, paras. 21-25), however, I am of the opinion that there is no longer room to engage the Appeals Committee in such inquiries and that the Respondent should conduct an assessment proceeding in accordance with the law and the law.
- The same is true of the witness who was brought to testify on behalf of the respondent. Although the respondent, like any litigant, has the prerogative to testify witnesses at his discretion, consideration must be given to the fact that the selection of witnesses has significance and implications, including with regard to the weight that can be attributed to the testimony of a particular witness.
- I will clarify at this point that as a rule, the person who decided on the objection on which the appeal was filed is the one who is required to testify and detail the manner in which he exercised his discretion. Even if in the case at hand, the respondent relied on the material in the file, while it was clarified that no visit to the apartment was conducted by a party on behalf of the respondent, but rather the respondent relied on the expert opinion, the photographs therein, the photographs provided by the sellers and the data of the municipality's inspector, this is not sufficient to satisfy the mind. It is required that the person who decided on the objection, after examining the arguments in the objection, held the hearing and heard the appellants and/or their representatives, examined documents and additional evidence, is the one who will come to give testimony on behalf of the respondent in order to present to the appeals committee the manner in which to exercise the discretion that led to the decision in the objection.
Only if, and to the extent that there is a real and substantive impediment, accompanied by concrete reasoning, such as the retirement of the person who made the decision to appeal or leave the Tax Authority (see: A.A. (Tel Aviv-Jaffa) 1015-02 Yosef Shiri v. Kfar Saba Tax Assessor (September 3,2012)), it will be possible to give proper weight to the testimony of another party from the Tax Assessment Office. In the case at hand, no such reason was presented, and the respondent must give his opinion on this matter from now on.
- In the margins, I will note that I have not found any reason to exempt the appellants from interest, linkage and fines, in the absence of a special reason for this.
- In light of all of the above, I have reached the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed. In my opinion, in light of the appellants' conduct and the evidentiary difficulties they raised in the management of the appeal, even if I take into account my above comments as to the manner in which the objection and appeal proceedings were conducted, there is room to charge the appellants with the respondent's expenses in the total sum of ILS 40,000, and this is what I will suggest to my colleagues.
Mr. Gidi Gabbay, Real Estate Appraiser - Committee Member: