TMI Blog1991 (12) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and their values returned were as follows: Name of the property Value returned for the assessment years (Rs.) 86/1, Suren Sarkar Road 56,400 4, Ram Mohan Roy Road 38,500 34 and 34A, Motilal Basak Lane 1,15,000 The Wealth-tax Officer later noticed that the Valuation Officer had determined the value of those properties differently as mentioned below: Name of the Property Assessment years 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 (Rs.) (Rs.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h-tax Rules, 1957. This was not accepted by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) and he dismissed the appeals for all the four years by a consolidated order dated October 25, 1984. They came in appeal before the Tribunal with the same objection, namely, that all the properties should have been valued in accordance with rule 1BB. According to them even in respect of the properties at Suren Sarkar Road, leased out for non-residential purposes, the rental method should have been adopted for the purposes of determining its value. The Tribunal construed sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 7 placing reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sharbati Devi Jhalani v. CWT [1986] 159 ITR 549 and reached the conclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nothing to do with the question that was to be decided by the Tribunal the issue before the Tribunal was a straightforward one, viz., whether, as advocated by the assessee, the house property should be valued on capitalisation of the rent as prescribed by rule 1BB. The Tribunal held that rule 1BB is mandatory but is not binding upon the Valuation Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal indirectly held that the value of a property, unless referred to a departmental Valuation Officer under section 16A, has to be compulsorily determined in accordance with the method prescribed in rule 1BB, but otherwise not. According to the Tribunal, once the question of valuation is referred to the Valuation Officer under section 16A of the Act, the latter is free ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elhi High Court in CWT v. Ganga Pershad Kedia [1990] 185 ITR 30, has opined that if rule 1BB is applicable, it is immaterial as to what value the valuation cell has arrived at. The Bombay High Court in Smt. Bella Cajeton Travasso v. Third WTO [1987] 166 ITR 49, expressly held that the Valuation Officer is duty bound under the Act and the Rules to value the property in accordance with the procedure prescribed by rule 1BB and that it is futile to claim that the Valuation Officer would ignore the applicability of rule 1BB. It is not possible to imagine how the Valuation Officer can refuse to consider the applicability of the statutory Rules while entertaining the reference made by the Wealth-tax Officer. The Gujarat High Court in CWT v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
