9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1957, would operate retrospectively so that the valuation of the assessee's building as on January 31, 1975, should be made in accordance with the said rule although the said rule 1BB came into force with effect from April 1, 1979 ?" The facts relevant to the aforesaid question are: The assessee was the owner of a residential house at Mall Road, Amritsar. He returned the value of the house at Rs. 1,40,000 but the Wealth-tax Officer valued the same at Rs. 3,94,000. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Wealth-tax), gave some relief in respect of the valuation of the land and brought down the valuation both of land and building to Rs. 3,47,540. The assessee relying upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal in WTA No. 64/65/ASR of 1980 wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with respect to the assessment years prior to April 1, 1979, and therefore, it would not apply to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. It was held that rule 1BB would apply to the assessment years for the period after April 1, 1979, to March 31, 1989, during which period the said rule remained in force. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessee in spite of the actual date notice issued to him. Although we have stated that the question referred to us stands concluded by the judgment of this court in Hira Lal's case [1994] 205 ITR 122, the same needs reconsideration in the light of the following facts: Different High Courts in the following cases, i.e. : CWT v. Lachmandas Bhatia [1987] 163 ITR 586 (MP), CWT v. Niranjan Nar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to April 1, 1979, on which date the said rule came into force. It was observed as under : " We may now 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 cases where the nature of the property is similar. Rule 1BB thus partakes of the charact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourts, in our opinion, cannot be said to be erroneous." In view of the decision rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sharvan Kumar Swarup's case [1994] 210 ITR 886, the view expressed by this court in Hira Lal's case [1994] 205 ITR 122 is no longer good law. The matter need not be referred to a larger Bench as the point involved stands concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court. Following the view taken by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is held that rule 1BB being a rule of evidence would be applicable to all pending cases including the assessment years prior to April 1, 1979, when rule 1BB was introduced for the first time. For the reasons stated above, the question referred to us is answered in the affirma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
