MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Revenue urged that question as delineated at p. 9 of the paper book which reads as under required to be decided: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in law in directing to adopt the value of agricultural land and public park land as declared by the assessee when there is a provision in Sch. III to the WT Act to value such properties under Rule 20 of the said Schedule?
(2.) THE question in its sum and substance says that valuation of the properties should be assessed in accordance with the Sch. III to the WT Act and value should be determined under Rule 20 of the WT Act. Rule 20 of the WT Act reads as under: 20. Valuation of assets in other cases - -(1) The value of asset other than cash being an asset which is not covered by Rules 3 to 19 for the purposes of 'this Act, shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of' the AO, it Would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub -rule (1), where the valuation of any asset referred to in that sub -rule referred by the AO to the Valuation Officer under Section 16A, the value of such asset shall be estimated to be the price which, in the 'Opinion of the Valuation Officer, it Would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation order. (3) Where the value of any asset cannot be estimated under this rule because it is not saleable in the open market the value shall be determined in accordance with such guidelines or principles as may be specified by the Board from time to time by general or special order Learned -counsel appearing for the Revenue urged that Rule 20(1), (2) is not applicable to the present case -as present case is covered by the Rule 20(3) of the Sch. III According to him, value, of properties should have been assessed by applying Rule 20 and not on the basis of value declared by the assessee. It was further submitted that when a statutory rule is available then authorities cannot pass order contrary. Hence it was prayed that the reference made by the Tribunal should be answered in their favour and thereby assessment of the valued property should be made as per r. 20 to the Sch. III.
(3.) PER contra, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the argument raised by the counsel for Revenue is without any basis, rather question has been referred by the Tribunal without going through the statutory provisions. Referring to Rule 20(3) it was submitted that the said provision can be applied only when some guidelines or principles have been specified: by the Board to determine the value of the properties involved in the present matter It was argued that Board has not issued any guidelines for determination of the value of the kind of properties involving in the present matter.; According to. the learned Counsel, Rule 20 is not applicable to the present case and in those circumstances even the reference is bad in eye of law and otherwise the answer to the reference has to be in negative thus it was prayed that the arguments of the Revenue should not be accepted for answering the reference.;