9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (10) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground No. 1 of Revenue's appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee owns only one residential house. The cost of the said self-occupied house property as per balance sheet furnished by the assessee as on 31st March, 1978 was Rs. 1,22,096. The assessee had declared value of the aforesaid property in her 1,22,096. The assessee had declared value of the aforesaid property in her wealth-tax return showing the value as per s.7(4) of WT Act, at Rs. 1,91,128. He invited our attention towards the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CWT vs. Kasturbhai Mayabhai (1986) 51 CTR (Guj) 309 : (1987) 164 ITR 107 (Guj) in support of his ground of cross objection and contended that r. 1BB introduced w.e.f. 1st April, 1979, has been held to be procedural in nature and the same has also been held to be applicable with retrospective effect. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has further held that in case of self-occupied property governed by s. 7(4) the choice would remain with the assessee to opt for the estimate of valuation either as per s. 7(4) or as per r. 1BB which he considers beneficial. He, therefore, urged that the prayer made by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carefully gone through the order passed by the learned AAC and by the WTO. We have also gone through the various documents submitted in the paper book to which our attention was drawn including the report of the Registered Valuer submitted by the assessee before the learned AAC showing valuation of the aforesaid house property as per r. 1BB. The extract from the aforesaid report of the Registered Valuer containing details about the valuation of the said residential house property as per r. 1BB. The extract from the aforesaid report of the Registered Valuer containing details about the valuation of the said residential house property as per r. 1BB are reproduced hereunder. "For the purpose of assessing gross maintenable ren, I have adopted the ALV as adopted by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Total plot area 862.90 smt. Less: Area in road approach 96.69 smt. 766.21 Net land=Aggregate 766.21 smt. Ground floor builtup 172.72 smt. Unbuilt area 593.49 smt. Specified area at 65% of aggregate 498.04 smt. Difference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty according to rental method of valuation and also according to r. 1BB of WT Rules. However, the contention of the learned Departmental Representative that the question as to whether all the conditions precedent for applying r. 1BB are fulfilled in the present case or not has not been examined by the AAC or by the WTO deserves consideration. We consider it just and proper to restore this matter back to the AAC for examining the applicability of the provisions contained in r. 1BB with regard to the valuation of the residential property. In the case the conditions precedent for applying all provisions of r. 1BB are fulfilled with regard to valuation of aforesaid property as per above referred certificate given by the Registered Valuer, the value determined by the Registered valuer on the basis of ALV adopted by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation ast Rs. 15,600, should be accepted. The AAC will decide this matter after giving opportunity to both the parties to satisfy him as to whether the conditions prescribed in r. 1BB are applicable in relation to valuation of the aforesaid residential house property or not. 6. Now we consider the Revenue's appeal. Ground No. 1 taken by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 (Mad). 8. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the loan amounting to Rs. 81,410 was rightly allowed by the AAC. He placed reliance on the decision of ITAT in the case of M. V. Subbiah vs. WTO (1983) 36 CTR (Trib) (Mad) 1 : (1983) 4 ITD 397 (mad) in which under similar facts and circumstances the amount of liability was held to be deductible against the taxable part of such asset which was partially exempt under s. 5(1)(iv). The decision was given by the ITAT Madras Bench on the basis of Board's Instruction No. 1070 dt. 28th June, 1977, It will be worthwhile to reproduce para 7 of the decision given by the ITAT Madras Bench: "7. We must now confine the consideration of this liability with regard to the house property only. Admittedly, the house property is except only to the limit of Rs. 1 lakh and the balance of the value is liable to tax. Admittedly the liability exceeds the value of the property liable to tax. The question whether in such a situation the liability should be allowed as a deduction or not in the light of s. 2(m)(ii) is not new to the department. By an instruction No. 1070, dt. 28th June, 1977, the Central Board of Direct Taxes had already ado ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
