9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (7) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the valuation of the assessee's building, as on March 31, 1973, and March 31, 1974, should be made in accordance with the said rule ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Wealth-tax Officer should determine afresh the desirability of referring the valuation of the asset to the Valuation Officer under section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, keeping in view rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Valuation Officer cannot ignore rule 1BB for the valuation of the residential property ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -tax Act. In spite of service, nobody on behalf of the respondent has put in appearance. On fixation of the case, a registered notice was also sent and the assessee declined to accept the same. We have heard counsel for the Revenue. The questions referred are overlapping with respect to the applicability of rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, as inducted in 1979 to the assessments in dispute which relate to the years 1973-74 and 1974-75. This rule was framed, vide Notification No. S. O. 169(E), dated March 30, 1979 (with effect from April 1, 1979). Rule 1BB was omitted by the Wealth-tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 1989, Notification No. S. O. 348(E), dated May 9, 1989 with effect from April 1, 1989. The general principle of interpretation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the Act, i.e., section 7. By Act 66 of 1976, section 7 stood amended which was enforced at the relevant time, i.e., 1973 and 1979, when assessments in the present case were to be finalised. It is not the case that assessments framed for the two assessment years were not in accordance with the provisions of the statute then in force, Section 7(4) to which reference has been made in question No. 4 reads as under: "(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the value of a house belonging to the assessee and exclusively used by him for residential purposes throughout the period of twelve months immediately preceding the valuation date may, at the option of the assessee, be taken to be the price which, in the opinion of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te, it is not at all material or relevant that it should be considered whether interpretation of any statute would be favourable to the assessee or the Revenue. In this context, reference may be made to the observations of this court in Sutlej Chit Fund and Financiers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 161 ITR 174 (headnote) : "It is for the Competent Authority to decide in a given situation as to which method would be more efficacious to determine the fair market value, The use of the method would thus entirely depend on the particular facts and circumstances of the case. The question of the use of the method which is favourable to the assessee or to the Revenue has no bearing because it is the fair market value which is to be determined and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
