9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the asst. yr. 1968-69 only which is the first year in these appeals. 2. The assessee had valued the property at Rs. 1,60,000 on the basis of there report of an approved valuer. The WTO, however, referred the matter to the valuation cell and the official valuer put the value of the said property at Rs. 2,54,480. The assessee s valuer had taken the net rental income at Rs. 14,380 and had capitalised it at 9 per cent or by taking the multiple of 11.1. the official valuer, however, had taken the net rental income at Rs. 12, 724 and had capitalised it at 5 per cent or in other words by taking a multiple of 20 times. The AAC in appeal reduced the multiple to 16.5 items which brought the value of the property to Rs. 2,15,000. The assessee i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the net rental value at 12 percent or by taking multiple of 8.3 times was reasonable. It was further submitted that in the case of Jaswant Rai vs. CWT (1977) 107 ITR 477 (P H), the property was owned by three family members. The court had held that if in one case a certain method was adopted the same method should be adopted in the other cases as well. It was further submitted that the Gauhati Bench of the Tribunal had directed for the adoption of 8 per cent or a multiple of 12.5 times for capitalisation (1980) 10 TTJ 75). It was further submitted that in the case reported in (1980) Vol. 15 to Taxes and Planning in respect of commercial property the capitalisation rate was approved at 12 percent or a multiple of 8.3 times. According t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proposition that the method of gilt edged securities valuation adopted by the official valuer could not be said to be unfair. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, however, stated in reply that the Gujarat High Court had held in (1977) 13 CTR (Guj) 27 : (1979) 118 ITR 134 (Guj) that this could not be made a universal rule. The ld. Official valuer conceded before us that there was no special feature in the property owned by the assessee and that he could not explain as to why a multiple of 20 was applied by his predecessor. In this case, the official valuer was stated to have given certain opportunities to the assessee to come up with his objection for valuing the property but the official valuer by the assessee had not submitted any objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
