9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accepting the valuation report of the assessee's valuer, which was not considered either by the Wealth-tax Officer or by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not err in law as well as in facts in not accepting the Departmental valuer's report valuing the property at Rs. 12,85,100 ? (3) Whether the Tribunal's order directing the Wealth-tax Officer to adopt the value as per the assessee's valuer's report, is not bad in law as the Tribunal had not given any reason or discussed anything in supporting the same and as such not sustainable ?" The facts for the purpose of answering the above questions may be narrated as follows : In the wealth-tax assessment of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 7(4) of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner felt that the Wealth-tax Officer should have considered the fact that the building was partly used for rental purpose. To discard this, it was the duty of the officer to prove that the tenancy claimed by the assessee was false. As this was not done the rental method ought to have been applied to work out the value of the rental portion and also the self-occupied portion of the value as envisaged under section 7(4) of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, therefore, worked out the value of the rental portion at Rs. 1,56,250 and Rs. 1,28,327 for the portion occupied by the assessee under the provisions of section 7(4) of the Act. In total the value was Rs. 2,84,577. Agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted the valuation of Rs. 12,85,100 worked out by the Valuation Officer and directed the Wealth-tax Officer to substitute the value of Rs. 4,48,000 as determined by the assessee's own valuer. We have heard both sides. Mr. G. K. Joshi, learned senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, has submitted before us that the Departmental Valuation Officer determined the value of the land and building at Thana Road, Shillong, at Rs. 12,85,100 and the said valuation was binding on the Wealth-tax Officer under section 16A(6) of the Act and, therefore, according to learned counsel, the Wealth-tax Officer took up the same value for assessment under the Act. Learned counsel for the Revenue has contended before us that as per the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e coming to any conclusions. Thus, the Tribunal violated the provisions of section 24(5) of the Act. Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, has submitted that question No. 1 does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as the valuation report of the assessee's valuer was very much there before the appellate authority and the reference was made by the appellate authority in his order dated March 1, 1988. In that regard it is not correct that the valuation report of the assessee's valuer was not considered by the lower authorities. Regarding questions Nos. 2 and 3, it is submitted that there is a discretion with the Tribunal in applying any method for determining the fair market value of a property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, or in a case where the Wealth-tax Officer is of opinion that the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value of the asset as returned by more than such percentage of the value of the asset as returned or by more than such amount as may be prescribed in this behalf or it is necessary to refer the same having regard to the nature of the asset and any other relevant instances. Sub-section (2) of section 16A requires that for estimating the value of any asset in pursuance of a reference under sub-section (1), the Valuation Officer may serve on the assessee, a notice requiring him to produce or cause to be produced on a date specified in the notice such accounts, records or other documents as the Valuation Officer may require. The power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmining the value of the property at Rs. 4,48,000. This aspect of the matter has been brought out in paragraph 3 of the written submissions addressed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. This valuation report, however, seems to have been over looked by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner inasmuch as he has worked out the value of the property at a much lower figure, viz., Rs. 2,84,600. This according to us is not proper and correct since the valuation cannot go down on the facts of the present case below the figure shown by the assessee's own valuer. In the final analysis we, while rejecting the valuation of Rs. 12,85,100 worked out by the Valuation Officer, direct the Wealth-tax Officer to substitute the same by the figure of Rs. 4, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
