9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in adopting the valuation as made by the valuers even though their valuation was not based on the statutory method of valuation provided under rule 1D ? 4. Whether the valuers to whom the valuation of shares was referred under section 24(6) of the Act were, in law, bound to follow the method of valuation prescribed by rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules ?" The assessee is an individual. She held certain unquoted shares of various companies of the J. K. Group In her returns filed under the Wealth-tax Act, she valued those shares by taking the average of the breakup value method and the yield value method. This was not accepted by the Wealth-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are to be valued. It is obvious that the valuers, while valuing the shares under sub-section (6) of section 24, have to follow the method prescribed by rule ID. There is, therefore, no question of rule ID overriding section 24(6). Both operate in their respective fields. The question is answered accordingly. Coming to question No. 2, it is true that the order of the Tribunal does not disclose that rule ID as such was referred to or relied upon by the appellant (Revenue) but it is equally clear that the whole argument of the Revenue was that the shares must be valued by adopting the break-up method as was done by the Wealth-tax Officer. Rule ID, it must be noted, incorporates the break-up method. (In this respect, it is necessary to notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he hearing of this appeal was held up at the request of both the parties awaiting the receipt of the valuer's report called for in the other reports. After the valuer's report was received, this appeal was disposed of adopting and accepting the valuation contained in the report. There is nothing to show in the order of the Tribunal that, after the receipt of the valuer's report, either party, in particular, the Revenue, objected to the said report on the ground that the valuation is not in accordance with rule ID. There is nothing to show in the order of the Tribunal that the valuer's report is not in accordance with rule ID. Just because the valuation arrived at by the valuers is less than the value determined by the Wealth-tax Officer, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
