1994 (11) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The late N. George Joseph created a trust by a deed dated May 22, 1972. The assessee is the executor of the trust. The Valuation Officer valued the building belonging to the trust by adopting the land and building method. The Wealth-tax Officer adopted the above value while rejecting the valuation made by the assessee observing that the assessee was not able to prove as to how he had valued the building. On appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the valuation made by the Wealth-tax Officer holding that the proper method of valuation was the land and building method. Aggrieved by the above, the assessee went in further appeal before the Tribunal which directed the Wealth-tax Officer to compute the value of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 979, the procedure prescribed therein cannot have any application to the assessment for the year 1976-77, which was pending. Even though various High Courts have taken the view that rule 1BB would be applicable to pending assessment proceedings, according to the Revenue, those decisions are no longer good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1. In the above decision, the Supreme Court has held that the provisions contained under rule 1D are mandatory and that those provisions are to be followed in valuing each and every case of unquoted equity shares of a company (other than an investment company or a managing agency company). Therefore, the provisions contained under rule 1BB also .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re and, therefore, applicable to pending proceedings is now settled by the decision of the apex court in CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup [1994] 210 ITR 886. While upholding the decisions of the High Courts of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Calcutta, Gujarat and Delhi, the Supreme Court held as follows : "On a consideration of the matter, we are persuaded to the view that rule 1BB is essentially a rule of evidence to the choice of one of the well accepted methods of valuation in respect of certain kinds of properties with a view to achieving uniformity in valuation and avoiding disparate valuations resulting from application of different methods of valuation respecting properties of a similar nature and character. The view taken by the High Courts .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X