9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (5) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s by one of the directors of the company. In the return originally filed for the assessment year 1985-86, the value of this flat was shown at Rs. 21,950. Thereafter, the same was revised to Rs. 50,250, and a report of the Approved Valuer was filed in support thereof. This value was computed in accordance with Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the property is self-occupied, inasmuch as, the same has not been let out and is being used for residential purposes by one of the directors of the company. Thus he held that rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, cannot be applied in the present case. The value shown at Rs. 50,250 by the assessee was capitalised at the rate of 12.5% and thus, its value was determi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al authorities as per rule 1BB. 5. It was also argued for the assessee that the CWT(A) was not entitled to direct the Assessing Officer to make a reference to the Valuation Officer under section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act. It was submitted that after completion of assessment, no reference under that provision can be made and the appellate authority is not entitled to direct the WTO for making a reference to the Valuation Officer. In that connection reference was made to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M. V. Kibe v. CWT [1987] 168 ITR 82 as also on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Shantilal Bhogilal Jhaveri v. C. L. Bhatica, Fifth WTO [1991] 187 ITR 395. 6. On the other hand, the learned representative for the reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e than 33.33% of the value shown by the assessee. This being so, the WTO was bound to make a reference under section 16A of the Act to the Valuation Officer. No such reference was made by him. In the given situation, we are of the view that the appellate authority could direct the Assessing Officer to make a reference. We are fortified in our view from the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Raja Baldeodas Birla Santatikosh v. CWT [1991] 189 ITR 613. It has been held in this case that the determination of the valuation of any asset is entirely a matter of procedure and that can be done at any stage of the proceedings inasmuch as, the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings. It is worthy of note here that the view of the Madh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688. 11. The learned representative for the revenue has submitted that this ground should not be admitted inasmuch as, the assessee wants to introduce a new case and which is inconsistent with the stand taken before the authorities below. 12. We have considered the submissions advanced by the parties. As stated earlier, the assessee's case before the departmental authorities was that the assessee holds the residential flat on ownership basis. In the computation sheet appearing at page 1 of the assessee compilation such assertion can be found. In its letter addressed to the CWT(A) dated 27-2-1990 appearing at page 7, the assessee had stated that the company owns the flat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
