- (1.) IN this case the following question has been sought to be answered : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the valuation of the property for the above assessment year should be done in the light of r. 1BB of the WT Rules, 1957, r/w S. 7 of the WT Act, 1977?"
(2.) THE assessee was having one-fourth and one-third share, respectively, in the land and building situated at 2/1/1B, Bright Street, Calcutta. In the original return for the asst. yrs. 1973-74 to 1975-76 the assessee had shown the total value as Rs. 90,605 which was revised to Rs. 1,27,439 in the revised return. She claimed exemption of Rs. 1 lakh from the wealth-tax. The WTO referred the matter to the Valuation Officer, Calcutta who valued the entire property at Rs. 10,21,000. The WTO accordingly adopted the one-fourth share of the land valued at Rs. 2,58,000 at Rs. 64,500 and one-third share of the building valued at Rs. 7,84,000 at Rs. 2,61,333. He allowed 2 per cent for undivided interest for co-owners. The total share valued was adopted at Rs. 3,19,317. In appeal, the valuation was confirmed by the AAC. On appeal filed before the Tribunal the matter was decided as follows : "5. We have considered the rival submissions carefully. In the case of Shri Biju Patnaik (supra), it was held that r. 1BB of the WT Rules as enacted on 1st April 1979 is procedural in nature, is retrospectively in operation and, therefore, applies to all pending proceedings whether they were pending before the WTO or the appellate authorities. Respectfully following the above decision, we held that the valuation of the property for the above assessment year should be done in the light of r. 1BB, r/w S. 7 of the WT Act. We accordingly set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restore them to the file of the WTO for fresh disposal in the light of r. 1BB and in accordance with law." The Supreme Court in CWT vs. Sharvan Kumar Swamp and Sons (1994) 210 ITR 886 (SC) has held that r. 1BB of the WT Rules, 1957 which came into force on 1st April, 1979, prescribing the method of valuing a house wholly or mainly used for residential purposes, merely provides a choice amongst well-known and well-settled modes of valuation and even in the absence of r. 1BB, it would not have been objectionable nor would there have been any legal impediment, to adopt the mode of valuation embodied in r. 1BB.
(3.) IN view of the above decision, the question is answered in the negative against the Department.;