- (1.)This appeal is directed against judgment dated 8th March, 2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Wealth Tax Appeal No. 374 of 2000 filed by the Appellant-Assessee. By the impugned judgment, the High Court upheld the order dated 12th June, 2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the, 'ITAT').
(2.)The dispute relates to wealth-tax return of Appellant-Assessee for the Assessment Year 1993-94. The Assessee filed its return of taxable wealth at Rs. 1,31,76,000/- against which the assessment was completed at net wealth of Rs. 3,90,93,800/-. The dispute is about the valuation of the property in question being a residential flat situated in Worli, Bombay which is owned by the Assessee and used as a guest house. The immovable property was acquired by the Assessee before 1st April, 1974 and the Assessee filed return on self assessment as per Rule 3 to 7 of Schedule III of the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the, 'Act'). In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (for short, 'AO') was of the opinion that the value of the said flat as disclosed in the return (as Rs. 1,55,139/- ) did not appear to be in consonance with the market value for a similar size flat in Mumbai and referred the matter to Departmental Valuation Officer Under Rule 20 of Schedule III who valued the flat at Rs. 2, 60, 73, 000/-. The AO also relied upon the agreement to sell of the said flat dated 15th September, 1995 entered by the Assessee with its vendor. In the said agreement the price of the flat was shown at Rs. 10,26,000/-. The AO was of the opinion that due to wide variation between alleged market value as determined by the Departmental Valuation officer and the value as disclosed by the Assessee, it was not practicable to value the property as per Rules 3 to 7 hence Rule 8(a) is attracted.
The A.O. further observed that as the Assessee had taken plea that it was paying rent @ Rs. 500 per month prior to the purchase of the flat and incurred expenditure on the improvement of the said flat, it was difficult for the AO to ascertain the price and, therefore, it would be impracticable to apply Rule 3.

(3.)On appeal, preferred by Assessee, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 31st December, 1996. The appellate order was confirmed by ITAT vide order dated 12th June, 2000. Thereafter, the Assessee preferred a miscellaneous application Under Section 35 of the Act seeking rectification of mistakes of fact and law apparent from the Tribunal's order. It was rejected by ITAT by its order dated 11th July, 2001. Finally, by the impugned judgment the High Court also affirmed the view taken by the Revenue.