9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s partly rented. The assessee disclosed the value of this property as on the relevant valuation date at Rs. 1,60,000. The valuation was referred by the WTO for both the assessment years to the Valuation Cell under s. 16A of the WT Act, 1957. On the basis of the report of the Asstt. Valuation Officer, the WTO determined the value of this house property at Rs. 5,48,000 and Rs. 6,13,000 respectively. 3. The assessee appealed to the AAC of WT before whom it was contended that the property was covered under the U.P. Rent Control Eviction Act and that a part of it was rented out and a part was in use of the assessee for residential purposes and, therefore, the valuation should be determined in accordance with the provisions of r. 1BB of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Officer was justified in determining the value of the said 6. We have considered the rival submissions as also the facts on record. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Biju Patnaik vs. WTO (1981)12 TTJ (Del)(SB) 25 : 1 SOT 617 has held following, the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CWT vs. Laxmipat Singhania 1977 CTR (All) 225 : (1978) 111 ITR 272 (All), that r. 1BB is mandatory in nature and it binds the WTO as well as the Valuation Officers. It was further held that the Valuation Officer cannot ignore r. 1BB for valuing a residential property. Another Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of WTO vs. Seth Sudhir Kumar Modi (1986) 24 TTJ (Del) 289 (SB) : (1985) 14 ITD 194 (Del)(SB) had the occasion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicable in the instant case. If not, he shall value the aforesaid two portions of the house in accordance with r. 1BB. 7. The assessee has filed an extract from the order of the Tribunal dt. 18th Feb., 1987 in ITA No. 63(Del) 77-78 in the case of M/s Rohits (India) Roorkee for the asst. yr. 1973-74 which is at page 28 of the paper book. A perusal of this order goes to show that the said firm had claimed depreciation at 1/3rd of the building which one of the partners, namely, the present assessee had brought into the firm. The authorities below disallowed depreciation on the ground that the firm was not the owner of the said property. The matter came up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that bringing of 1/3rd porti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
