9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Wealth-tax Officer if it is higher than the valuation of the property arrived at by the application of the said rule I BB of the Wealth-tax Rules? Whether the Tribunal is Tight in holding a principle that value cannot be less than returned and returned value to be a minimum value below which assessment of value cannot be made, rather than an estimate of fair market value? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in indirectly binding the lower authorities not to determine the value of the property below the figure given in the return ? 3. Without prejudice to the other question of law whether the Tribunal was right in not having it clearly brought out in their order setting forth clearly that the returned value at 75% unearned incre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of the property is not allowable ?" The questions sought to be raised pertain to the valuation of a property in New Delhi. The assessee had returned the value of his share in the said property at Rs. 3.06 lakhs in the wealth-tax returns submitted for the two years in question on the basis of the valuation by a registered valuer. The Wealth-tax Officer, however, referred the valuation of the property to a valuation officer and determined the value of the entire property at Rs. 19.44 lakhs and the assessee's share therein at Rs. 9.72 lakhs. The assessee preferred appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner gave the assessee a relief of Rs. 95,531. The assessee preferred further appeals befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said rule ". Also in the view taken by it regarding the applicability of rule 1BB, the Tribunal did not consider the other grounds that had been urged in the original grounds of appeal. In fact, perhaps because of the view indicated by the Tribunal, the assessee did not argue these grounds of appeal before the Tribunal. It is, in these circumstances, that the assessee has filed these applications for the reference of the above six questions to this court. We are of the opinion, after hearing both counsel, that the first of the above questions does arise out of the order of the Tribunal and may be directed to be referred in a modified form. We, therefore, call upon the Tribunal to state a case and refer for the decision of this court, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised by the assessee in his original grounds of appeal before the Tribunal. Questions Nos. 4 and 5, therefore, do not call for reference at this stage. Question No. 6 is no doubt a question of law but the answer to the same is self-evident and, in our opinion, it does not merit reference to this court. Learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Tribunal is not correct in observing in its order that this question was neither argued nor in issue before the Tribunal. As pointed out by him, this question has been discussed and rejected after a brief discussion by the Tribunal in paragraph 16 of its appellate order. However, for the reason we have already mentioned, we do not propose to call for a reference of this question. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
