1978 (1) TMI 36 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation for filing an appeal.
2. Requirement of a certified copy for filing an appeal.
3. Method of valuation of the property.

Summary:

1. Limitation for Filing an Appeal:
The primary issue was whether the appeal filed by the respondent was within the prescribed time limit. The competent authority passed its order on 24th July 1974, and the respondent filed the appeal on 17th September 1975. The court noted that if the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order is excluded, the appeal is within time. The court held that the appeal was not barred by limitation as the time required to obtain the certified copy must be excluded in computing the period of limitation.

2. Requirement of a Certified Copy for Filing an Appeal:
The court examined whether it was necessary for the respondent to obtain a certified copy of the order to file an appeal. The court referred to r. 9 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and s. 269G(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which mandate that a certified copy of the order appealed from must accompany the memorandum of appeal. The court held that the copy initially furnished to the respondent was not a certified copy within the meaning of s. 76 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the respondent was justified in obtaining a certified copy, and the time taken for this should be excluded from the limitation period.

3. Method of Valuation of the Property:
The court addressed the method for determining the fair market value of the property. The Tribunal had used the rental method, which the revenue contested, arguing that the land and building method should have been applied. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the rental method was appropriate given the facts: the property was fully developed, tenanted, and the building was old and dilapidated. The court referenced the case of CED v. Radha Devi Jalan [1968] 67 ITR 761 (Cal), which supports using the rental method for properties burdened with tenants and controlled by statute. The court rejected the revenue's contention and affirmed that the rental method was the correct approach for this case.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the appeal was filed within the time limit and that the rental method was the appropriate method for valuing the property. The respondent was entitled to costs.