WEALTH TAX OFFICER Vs. HEMLATA SHUKLA/SARLA SHUKLA
LAWS(IT)-1982-10-21
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on October 30,1982

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Prakash Narain, Accountant Member - (1.) SINCE the above appeals involve common contentions and same arguments were advanced by the counsel in both the cases, they are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
(2.) The first common contention relates to the valuation of Birhana Road (Kanpur) property. There is no dispute that in this property both the above assessees held equal shares. The WTO valued it on rental method. He found that the assessees themselves had applied a multiple of 20 in the assessment years 1973-74 and subsequent years. He applied the same multiple to all the years under appeal. On this basis, he valued the share of each assessee in this property at Rs. 1,08,600 for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1973-74. For the subsequent assessment years, he adopted the value of Rs. 1,66,000 as declared by each of the assessee' s in their respective returns. Both the assessees appealed to the AAC. The leading order was passed by the latter in the case of Smt. Hemlata Shukla, which was followed by him in the case of Smt. Sarla Shukla. He observed that the WTO had not given any reason, apart from taking the assessee's own declaration as the basis for applying a multiple of 20 to the net rental income. According to him, therefore, the basis shown by the assessee of applying a multiple of 15 only was reasonable and should have been applied. He, accordingly, deleted the addition made by the WTO in the respective assessment years.
(3.) BEING dissatisfied with the above finding of the AAC, the WTO has come up in appeals before us. The learned departmental representative submitted before us that there was no reason for not applying a multiple of 20 to the net rental income even up to the assessment years 1973-74 when both the assessees themselves had applied that multiple in the subsequent assessment years. The counsel, on the other hand, submitted that it was Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ('the Rules') which should be applied to the case as the property was mainly used for residential purposes.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.