9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the point involved in W. T. A. No. 127/(Bang) of 1992, only. The facts occasioning the filing of this appeal briefly stated are In relation to the assessment year 1987-88 relevant for the valuation date ending on March 31, 1987, the Wealth-tax Officer passed the assessment order under section 16(3) of the Act. While concluding the assessment, the Wealth-tax Officer determined the value of the immovable property of the assessee situated at No. 3/1-2, Ali Askar Road, Bangalore, at Rs. 1,37,66,663. Aggrieved by the said order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the jurisdictional Appellate Commissioner of Income-tax assailing the valuation of the aforesaid immovable property as made by the assessing authority. Apar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luation report prepared by that cell in accordance with which the value of the property should be taken at Rs. 49,01,200. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to accept this valuation. We fail to understand, when the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) has directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the valuation as made by the Departmental Valuation Officer, what grouse the Department can have against such valuation. The appeal thus seems to be, totally a frivolous one. Hence, we dismiss the Departmental appeal." The assessee had also preferred an appeal against the appellate order of the Commissioner being W.T.A. No. 127(Bang) of 1992, before the Tribunal. The assessee had also preferred a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn to the scope and content of rule 1BB. The said rule merely provides a choice amongst well-known and well-settled modes of valuation. Even in the absence of rule 1BB it would not have been objectionable, nor would there be any legal impediment, to adopt the mode of valuation embodied in rule 1BB, namely, the method of capitalisation of income on a number of years' purchase value. The rule was intended to impart uniformity in valuations and to avoid vagaries and disparities resulting from application of different modes of valuation in different eases where the nature of the property is similar. Rule 1BB thus partakes of the character of a rule of evidences It deems the market value to be the one arrived at on the application of a part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arayansa [2000] 244 ITR 593 held: "Schedule Ill introduced in the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, with effect from April 1, 1989, is procedural and not substantive and all matters which were pending on April 1, 1989, are covered by the said Schedule. The market value in all such eases has to be determined in accordance with Schedule III." Counsel appearing for the Revenue argued that since the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue determining the value of the property at Rs. 49,01,200, it was not open to the Tribunal to direct the District Valuation Officer to value the property by applying Schedule III in the appeal filed by the assessee. We do not find substance in this submission. The Revenue in its appeal had challenged the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
