1994 (4) TMI 108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t Rs. 2,14,000. The Assessing Officer made a reference under s. 16A to the Departmental Valuation Cell which determined the value of the property at Rs. 9,21,800. This was adopted by the Assessing Officer and after allowing statutory deduction under s. 5 at Rs. 1,00,000, the value adopted was Rs. 8,21,800. The assessee took up the matter in appeal before the learned Dy. CWT(A) when he assailed the valuation adopted at Rs. 9,21,800 as against Rs. 3,14,000 shown and one of the grounds of appeal raised was against the mode of valuation adopted by the Departmental Valuation Cell when according to the assessee valuation of the impugned property should have been worked out under r. 1BB only, the property being wholly self-occupied for the entire .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the property accordingly. Shri Aggarwal submitted that this was duly brought to the notice of the Valuation Cell when the assessee offered his comments on report of Departmental Valuation Officer wherein the assessee had worked out the valuation under r. 1BB on rateable value basis at Rs. 2,72,750 and at Rs. 3,67,750 under rental method and at Rs. 4,03,800 under Land and Building method. He submitted that it was pointed out that the valuation as under rateable value method at Rs. 2,72,750 could only be adopted. Shri Aggarwal submitted that while the learned 1st Appellate Authority found the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer made in a hurry without giving any cogent reason and as also upheld the contention of the assessee that va .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d after having made the reference, the Assessing Officer was bound to accept the valuation so worked out. 7. We have heard both the parties and have also perused the relevant record. There is no dispute about facts, i.e., the property is residential and wholly self-occupied. Therefore, there is no escape from applicability of r. 1BB on the part of the Assessing Officer. It was his duty to determine the valuation under r. 1BB and having not done so, the reference made by him to Valuation Cell is not competent. We, therefore, deem it necessary to remit the issue to the Assessing Officer with the directions to determine the valuation of the impugned property in accordance with r. 1BB. In case, the same works out at less than the value disclo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X