Valuation parity for co-sharers prevents the Revenue from applying a higher figure to an identical property share.

In valuing an undivided share in the same property, the Revenue cannot adopt a higher figure against one co-sharer where an identical share has already been accepted at a lower valuation in the case of another co-sharer for the same assessment year. The absence of any material distinction between the shares requires consistent treatment, and a different yardstick is not justified without supporting evidence. The article notes that the principle of parity in valuation applied to the assessee's 1/5th share, so the higher valuation was held unsustainable and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the valuation of the assessee's 1/5th share in the plot of land could be sustained at a figure higher than the valuation already accepted by the Revenue in the case of another co-sharer for the same assessment year.

Analysis: The dispute concerned valuation of an identical 1/5th share in the same property. The valuation adopted in the case of the assessee's co-sharer had already been accepted by the Revenue at Rs. 17,000 for the relevant year. In the absence of any effective distinction between the shares or any material to justify a different approach, the Revenue could not consistently adopt a higher valuation for the assessee's share. Reliance was placed on the principle that, where an unchallenged valuation order exists in the case of a co-owner for the same property, it is not open to the Department to apply a different yardstick.

Conclusion: The higher valuation made in the assessee's hands was not sustainable and the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: In valuing an undivided share in the same property, the Revenue cannot adopt a higher figure against one co-sharer when an unchallenged valuation for an identical share has already been accepted in the case of another co-sharer for the same assessment year.

---