9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Valuation of house property for assessment years 1968-69 to 1975-76 based on the value declared by the assessee compared to the value determined by the WTO. Analysis: The appeals by the Revenue were against the AAC's order accepting the value declared by the assessee for a house property in New Delhi for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1975-76. The assessee, an HUF, argued that the property was partly self-occupied and partly let out. The assessee contended that the market value should not exceed the premium paid and highlighted discrepancies in the valuation report. The AAC agreed that the property should be valued according to Rule 1 BB, but as the value under this rule was lower than the declared value, the AAC deemed the declared value fair and reasonable. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, raising concerns about the AAC's decision, including not giving the Valuation Officer an opportunity to be heard and relying on rules that came into force later. The Tribunal referenced a Special Bench decision, stating that Rule 1 BB is mandatory, retrospective, and applicable to pending assessments. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could benefit from Rule 1 BB even if they declared a higher value. The Valuation Officer did not contest the valuation method under Rule 1 BB, and since the declared value was higher than the calculated value, the AAC's acceptance of the declared value was upheld. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the AAC's decision to accept the declared value of the property. The Tribunal emphasized the applicability and binding nature of Rule 1 BB in determining property values and clarified the assessee's entitlement to relief under the rule even if they declared a higher value.
|
