9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dopted in the succeeding assessment years 1979-80 to 1981-82. However, the assessee took an additional ground before the AAC that the said house should have been valued in accordance with rule 1BB. This stand of the assessee was accepted by the AAC. he held that since rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules is mandatory, the WTO should value the property in accordance with rule 1BB. 3. The department is aggrieved by this order of the AAC. It is contended by the learned departmental representative that since the house was purchased only few months before the valuation date, the WTO rightly adopted the purchase price as the value of that house and the question of rule 1BB does not arise. In reply it is contended by the learned counsel for the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonably be expected to let from year to year, but the assessment by one authority under an Act need not necessarily be followed by another authority under the other Act though may be a relevant fact to be taken into consideration by the other authoirty. Assessment under the Calcutta Municipal Act. 1951 is quite a different proceeding and finding reached therein cannot be made binding to the proceeding under the Wealth-tax act. And above all in a curisoity to find out the value of the house by a short cut method of adopting the assessment made by another authority one cannot be theoretical and thereby to lose sight of the established fact that the house has been purchased for Rs. 1,73,217 only few months before the valuation date. The obj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disallowed the claim of Rs. 52,062, it being less than the exemption of Rs. 71,179 allowed, and the WTO further rightly allowed proportionate deduction of Rs. 63,504 out of the total claim of Rs. 1,10,000. 7. Contention of the learned counsel for the assessee is that the instruction No. 1070 dated 28-6-1977 issued by the CBDT was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Madras High Court. It is further contended by him that the said judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High court in the case Madras High Court and the said instruction of the CBDT have been recently considered by the Hon'ble Rajashtan High Court in the case of CWT v. Sanwarmal Shivkumar [1987] 34 Taxman 492. According to him, it is not the proportionate amount but the full amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
