R.K.AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) THE Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the two questions of law under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for opinion to this Court : "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in allowing deduction of 1/6th for repairs and 6 per cent for collection charges for working out the net ALV of the property - 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the reversionary value of the land does not enter into picture where the value of a property is determined by capitalising the net ALV of the property -
(2.) THE present reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1973 -74 to 1975 -76.
(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows : The assessees who are Gopal Sutwala (Individual), Gopal Sutwala (Karta) of Hira Lal Sutwala (HUF) and Smt. Parti Devi (HUF) are co -owners in the following five properties : 1. 58/44 and 58/44A, Birhana Road, Kanpur 2. 75/4, Halsey Road, Kanpur 3. 16/16, Civil Lines, Kanpur (known as Barley House), 4. 49/23, General Ganj, Kanpur 5. 49/26, General Ganj, Kanpur. (hereinafter referred to as property Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively) valuer, Shri T.N. Gupta for the years under consideration as under : Property No. 1 1973 -74 Rs. 2,37,568 1974 -75 Rs. 3,37,568 1975 -76 Rs. 2,83,000 Property No. 2 1973 -74 Rs. 3,48,000 1974 -75 Rs. 3,48,000 1975 -76 Rs. 4,26,000 Property No. 3 1973 -74 Rs. 1,87,600 1974 -75 Rs. 1,87,600 1975 -76 Rs. 1,88,000 Property No. 4 1973 -74 Rs. 40,800 1974 -75 Rs. 40,800 1975 -76 Rs. 51,360 Property No. 5 1973 -74 Rs. 74,760 1974 -75 Rs. 74,460 1975 -76 Rs. 80,660 The WTO referred the question of valuation of these properties for the asst. yrs. 1974 -75 and 1975 -76 to the Departmental Valuation Cell under s. 16A of the Act and on the basis of his reports, determined the value of the aforesaid properties for all the three years as under : Property No. 1 1973 -74 Rs. 3,67,000 1974 -75 Rs. 3,67,000 1975 -76 Rs. 3,72,300 Property No. 2 1973 -74 Rs. 6,62,400 1974 -75 Rs. 6,62,400 1975 -76 Rs. 6,64,300 Property No. 3 1973 -74 Rs. 1,07,300 1974 -75 Rs. 11,07,300 1975 -76 Rs. 12,70,700 Property No. 4 1973 -74 Rs. 1,89,100 1974 -75 Rs. 1,89,100 1975 -76 Rs. 2,21,800 Property No. 5 1973 -74 Rs. 3,23,000 1974 -75 Rs. 3,23,000 1975 -76 Rs. 3,61,900 ] The WTO assessed the assessee's share in these properties to wealth -tax accordingly. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the AAC. The valuation made by the Valuation Officer was contested on the following grounds in respect of the first three properties : 1. Deduction on account of repairs to the extent of 1/13 only given by the Valuation Officer while working out the net ALV. 2. Deduction given on account of collection charges to the extent of 4 per cent only. 3. Inclusion of the reversionary value of the land. 4. The multiple adopted in respect of property No. 2 at 17.68 was on the high side. The capitalisation method adopted by the approved Valuation Officer was approved by the AAC but he held that the deduction for repairs and collection charges should be allowed at 1/6th and 6 per cent, respectively as against 1/12th and 4 per cent allowed by the Valuation Officer for working out the net ALV. Further, the AAC relying upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Ashima Sinha (1979) 116 ITR 26 (Cal) deleted the addition of reversionary value of the land. The multiple of 17.68 adopted by the Valuation Officer in respect of properly No. 2 was also reduced to 16 times. Thus, the AAC determined the value of the three properties as under : Property No. 1 1973 -74 Rs. 2,60,000 1974 -75 Rs. 2,83,000 1975 -76 Rs. 2,83,000 Property No. 2 1973 -74 Rs. 4,75,000 1974 -75 Rs. 5,18,720 1975 -76 Rs. 5,18,720 Property No. 3 1973 -74 Rs. 2,50,000 1974 -75 Rs. 2,50,000 1975 -76 Rs. 2,50,000 The Department being aggrieved filed appeals against the order of the AAC before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the deduction of 1/6th for repairs and 6 per cent for collection of rent was rightly allowed by the AAC for working out the net ALV of the properties in view of the Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Smt. Ashima Sinha (supra). The Tribunal relying upon the cases of Smt. Ashima Sinha (supra) and CIT vs. Anup Kumar Kapoor and Ors. (1980) 125 ITR 684 (Cal) also held that since the market value of the properties was being arrived at by capitalising the ALV, no other factor, like the reversionary value of the land could enter into picture. Insofar as property Nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, the order of the AAC was set aside to be made afresh. ] We have heard Sri R.K. Upadhyay,;