9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land admeasuring 2137 sq.yds. The property is a residential house consisting of rooms for the residence of the servants. The property was valued by the Departmental Valuation Officer on this basis of value of the land plus scrap value of the building. We are not concerned here with the valuation of the land. The WTO while completing the assessments originally for asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78 valued the residential property on the basis of provisions contained in s. 7(4) of the Act. He rejected the claim of the assessee regarding valuation under R. 1BB of the WT Rules on the basis that on calculations the property did not satisfy the eligibility test contained in the relevant rules. Nothing is clarified on this aspect but it appeared that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttam. After that in asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81 the WTO had allowed such exemption. He therefore, directed the WTO to follow the directions given by the Commissioner(A)-VIII, Ahmedabad, in para 10 of the order in the case of Sulochana Narottam. 3. In respect of the issue regarding applicability of s. 7(4) of the Act the WTO was of the view that property consisted only of residential house consisting of servant's rooms. According to him, it was only immovable house property owned by the assessee and not residential house which is used by the assessee for the purpose of residence. The servants' rooms by themselves would not make the property a residential house. According to him, who were the servants and to whom they served was also no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh (1972) 83 ITR 52 (Del). 5. We have gone through the orders passed by the authorities below. We regard to the examination under s. 5(1)(iv) of the Act nothing is brought to our notice which would go against the evidence considered by the Commissioner(A) on the basis of which the order is passed. We are also not told as to whether any action is taken under s. 25 of the Act in respect of the exemption granted by the WTO for asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81. We have also considered the language contained in s. 5(1)(iv) of the Act allows exclusion of one house or part of the house belonging to the assessee. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner(A). 5.1. Coming to the issue regarding applicability of s. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the decision taken by the Commissioner(A). 5.2. Coming to the challenge regarding the applicability of s. 7(4) to entities other than individual, we find that nowhere this aspect has been considered nor was the issue before the authorities below. Apart from the prayer for raising this additional ground we were not even informed that this was the new issue altogether not considered by the authorities below. In any case, we will deal with this matter. The benefit of s. 7(4) is available in respect of house belonging to the assessee and the assessee includes HUF. The use of the word 'him' instead of 'it' does not alter the position. Sec. 7(4) of the Act concerns valuation of the property used for residence and as such a machinery sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
