TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or wealth-tax purposes was shown in the wealth-tax return at Rs. 13,000 after adopting the rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules and after following the rental method. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) found that the property was sold for Rs. 3 lakhs within a few months from the valuation date. The date of sale is 28-2-1984 and the valuation date is 31-3-1983. On these facts, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) stated in the wealth-tax assessment order that it would be absurd to accept this figure of Rs. 13,000 as the market value of the property, especially when the figure of actual sale of property at Rs. 3 lakhs was available on record. He, therefore, adopted the value of the property at Rs. 3 lakhs. 3. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se (5) of rule 1BB was not taken into account by the CWT (Appeals), that the concept of market value of an immovable property was not properly appreciated by the CWT (Appeals) and, therefore, we allow the appeal of the Revenue and restore the order of the Assessing Officer in which the valuation of Rs. 3 lakhs had been adopted in respect of the property under consideration. The reasons for this finding of ours are set out below. 6. It will be relevant to point out here that the method of valuation of assets has been indicated in section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act. Here, the valuation of any asset other than cash, has to be ascertained. There is no difficulty about including the cash, that is why, the valuation of cash has to be included as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 3 lakhs as against Rs. 13,000 returned by the assessee. It is for these reasons that the order of the Assessing Officer has been restored and the department's appeal has been allowed by us. 7. Before closing the case, certain objections raised on behalf of the assessee need be met by us. The first objection taken by the learned counsel for the assessee was that for invoking sub-rule (5) of rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, the approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was not taken. We find that in this case, the IAC himself has come to a conclusion that it was not practicable to apply the provisions of rule 1BB and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was the Assessing Officer in this case. Therefore, the question of taking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
