- (1.) BY this application under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957, Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion : "Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the CWT(A) directing the AO to take the value of Preme Prakash Cinema Building as per finding of first appellate authority for asst. yr. 1979-80 by making enhancement by 10 per cent in each assessment year over the value adopted for the earlier years ?" The assessee is HUF and also a partner in the partnership firm M/s S. Zoraster & Co. which interalia owns an immovable property known as Prem Prakash Cinema Building. The HUF had declared its value in the immovable property at minus figure, whereupon the WTO made reference under s. 16A of the WT Act to the Valuation Cell of the Department. The District Valuation Officer valued the said property at positive figures. The assessee thereafter carried the matter before the CWT(A). The CWT(A) has added 10 per cent in the value taken in the preceding year of this building. The Tribunal also has upheld the view taken by the CWT(A) enhancing the value by 10 per cent of the value taken just in the preceding year. Mr. Ranka, learned counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that similar issue has been considered by the apex Court in case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib AIR 2002 SC 1558, wherein their lordships have considered that if the authority has estimated the value by enhancing 10 per cent in the value in each year, it is just and reasonable and that cannot be said excessive or reasonable. The relevant observations of their lordships in para 13 reads as under : "After due deliberations on the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that on the given facts and circumstances of the present case the appreciation of 10 per cent per annum given for the subsequent years is neither excessive nor reasonable so as to call for our interference". Considering the view taken by the Tribunal and which has been supported by their lordships' view, we find no infirmity in the order of Tribunal. In the result we answer the question in affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The reference so made stands disposed of accordingly.;