1994 (4) TMI 108 - AT - Wealth-tax

Tribunal directs reevaluation of residential property valuation under rule 1BB

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have valued the house property under rule 1BB as it was residential and self-occupied, contrary to the ... - Issues: Valuation of house property under section 5 and rule 1BBThe judgment involves a dispute regarding the valuation of a house property in New Delhi. The assessee, an individual, disclosed the property value at Rs. 3,14,000, claiming a deduction under section 5. The Assessing Officer referred the valuation to the Departmental Valuation Cell, which determined the value at Rs. 9,21,800. The assessee contested this valuation, arguing that the property should be valued under rule 1BB as it was self-occupied for 12 months. The Dy. CWT(A) agreed with the assessee, valuing the property at Rs. 2,72,750 under rule 1BB. However, the Dy. CWT(A) used the Land & Building method to value the property at Rs. 5,02,906, considering it higher than the assessee's disclosure and the Valuation Cell's assessment.The authorized representative for the assessee contended that the valuation should strictly follow rule 1BB, emphasizing that the property being residential and self-occupied necessitates valuation under this rule. The representative argued that the Valuation Cell's report was hastily prepared without proper justification. Referring to a Madras High Court judgment, it was stressed that the taxing department must ascertain the true market value, even if the assessee's valuation is higher. The representative pointed out that in a subsequent assessment year, the value disclosed by the assessee was accepted, reinforcing the argument for valuation under rule 1BB.On the other hand, the Departmental Representative defended the reference to the Valuation Cell, asserting that the Assessing Officer was obligated to accept the valuation determined by them. After considering both arguments and the facts that the property was residential and self-occupied, the Tribunal concluded that rule 1BB should have been applied by the Assessing Officer. As the valuation by the Valuation Cell exceeded the assessee's disclosure, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reevaluate the property in accordance with rule 1BB. Any excess valuation declared by the assessee was to be disregarded. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.