TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the transaction was not put through, the assessee had again entered into an agreement with another buyer on 10th June, 1981 for selling the property at Rs. 18 lakhs. Therefore, the Commissioner felt that the value of the property should be much more than what was assessed by the WTO. The assessee pointed out that the first agreement of sale was not acted upon as the assessee was unable to evict the tenants from the premises to be sold, and the second agreement was merely an agreement and the assessee had taken upon himself the task of evicting the tenants and had, in fact, spent Rs. 7,48,453 on the same. Moreover, the property was valued by the assessee only on rent capitalisation basis as it was fully tenanted and the WTO adopted the va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the WTO adopted a different figure as in the preceding years, also on rent capitalisation basis. The CWT found in that case also that the property was under an agreement of sale for higher sums and considering the proximity of the date of such agreements of sale, felt that the value of the property would have been more than what was assessed by the WTO and hence set aside the Orders of the WTO directing him to redo the assessments after referring the value of the property to the Valuation Cell. The assessee's case is on a par with the facts narrated above, though the amounts involved are different. The Tribunal's conclusions are to be found in paras 10 to 13 of its order dt. 28th Nov., 1988. The Tribunal proceeded to consider whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f rupees, by taking the actual rent received, for purposes of capitalisation. In other words, the difference between the value offered by the assessee and the value determined by the WTO in respect of the impugned property was not due to any difference in the method of valuation, but only as a result of taking the correct amount of rent received. Thus, both the assessee and the WTO had proceeded only on the basis of rent capitalisation method which is an approved method. Thus, there was no error in the assessment orders resulting in prejudice to the interests of Revenue. 5. The next question which also came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the order cited supra was whether the direction of the learned Commissioner that while co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not due to the assessee and the WTO adopting different methods of valuation. Both have proceeded only on rent capitalisation method and the difference was only due to the adoption of the actual rent received by the assessee which was taken by the WTO for capitalisation purposes. Therefore, it cannot be said that the WTO had discarded the method of valuation adopted by the assessee. He had also looked at the fair market value of the impugned property from the angle of rent capitalisation method but had made corrections in respect of the rents received which form the basis for capitalisation. It is only in cases where the WTO adopts a different method of valuation resulting in a difference between the value returned and the value assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
