Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) In this reference under Section 27(3) of the W.T. Act, 1957, the following questions have been referred to this court : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in the instant case the land-cum-building method was the most appropriate method of valuation ? If the answer to question No. 1 be in the negative, whether the correct method of valuation would be rental method based on the actual rent received from the property ?"
(2.) In order to appreciate the questions it would be relevant to refer to certain facts. The assessment years involved are 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 for which the respective valuation dates were 31-3-64, 31-3-65, 31-3-66, 31-3-67, 31-3-68 and 31-3-69. The question of valuation of the property at premises No. 8, Dover Park, Calcutta, on the respective valuation dates was involved in the appeals before the Tribunal leading to the present reference. The said property is a trust property. It was purchased on the 30th March, 1964, for Rs. 1,20,000 by the trustees for the benefit of the minor beneficiary. It may be mentioned that the trustees were the two major sons of the tenant of the premises and one at the relevant time was a solicitor of this court. The beneficiaries of the trust are the minor children of the settlor. The said property consists of a two-storeyed building and open land measuring 17 cottahs and 8 chattaks. The building consists of 7 rooms with a garage and a servant's quarters attached to it. The assessee's father was living in the said building as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 434 when it was purchased by the trustees and he continued to live therein at the same monthly rent after it was purchased. Inasmuch as certain controversy has arisen as to whether the rent was fair or not, it is appropriate, in our opinion, to refer to the order of the AAC wherein he observed, inter alia, as follows : "The property was purchased for Rs. 1,20,000 in March, 1964. The appellant's father, Sri Shive Charan Laul Talwar, was a tenant in this house for over 20 years at a monthly rent of Rs. 434. This property had 17 cottahs of land and a two-storeyed building consisting of 7 rooms, garage, servants' quarters, etc."
(3.) The Tribunal also in its appellate order observed as follows : "It appears that the assessee's father was living in the premises as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 434 and he continued to live in the premises as a tenant on a monthly rent even after it was purchased by the trustees for the benefit of the minor. The area of the said premises, according to the approved valuer's report, is 17 cottahs 6 chattaks. The building is two-storeyed and consists of 7 rooms and it has a lawn, a garage and servants' quarters attached to it.";