Certified copy time excluded for limitation; rental method governs valuation of heavily tenanted, built-up property.

Time spent obtaining a true certified copy of the acquisition order was excludable for limitation where the appellate rules required the appeal to be filed with a certified copy, so the appeal was not time-barred. For valuation under Chapter XX-A, a substantially built-up tenanted property with little development potential and controlled rent was to be assessed by the rental method rather than the land-and-building method or a hybrid approach. The transferee's higher purchase price was only a relevant factor and did not displace the proper valuation method.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the acquisition order was liable to be excluded for computing limitation for the appeal under the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the rental method or the land and building method was the proper method for determining the fair market value of the tenanted property for acquisition proceedings under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the acquisition order was liable to be excluded for computing limitation for the appeal under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The appeal rules required the memorandum of appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy of the order appealed against. The copy initially served on the respondent bore the officer's signature and seal, but did not contain any endorsement certifying it as a true copy. In the absence of a statutory definition, the expression "certified copy" was understood in its settled legal sense, consistent with the meaning in the Evidence Act. Since the appeal had to be filed in the prescribed form with a certified copy, the respondent was justified in obtaining such copy before filing the appeal.

Conclusion: The time taken to obtain the certified copy was excluded in computing limitation, and the appeal before the Tribunal was not barred by time.

Issue (ii): Whether the rental method or the land and building method was the proper method for determining the fair market value of the tenanted property for acquisition proceedings under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The property was substantially built up, had little scope for further development, and was in the possession of an old tenant and sub-tenants at a controlled rent. In these circumstances, the rental method was the appropriate mode of valuation. The land and building method, and hybrid methods combining deferred land value with rental capitalisation, were not accepted as proper on the facts. The higher price paid by the transferee was only a relevant circumstance and did not displace the correct valuation method.

Conclusion: The rental method was the correct method of valuation, and the conditions for acquisition were not satisfied.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's order failed both on limitation and on merits, and the acquisition order was not sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the appellate scheme requires a certified copy to accompany the appeal, time spent in obtaining a true certified copy is excludable for limitation; and where a property is substantially built up, tenanted, and subject to rent control with little scope for development, its fair market value is ordinarily to be assessed by the rental method rather than by the land and building method.

---