1989 (12) TMI 85

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....981-82 and 1982-83 that the property is partly used for self-residence and is partly rented. The assessee disclosed the value of this property as on the relevant valuation date at Rs. 1,60,000. The valuation was referred by the WTO for both the assessment years to the Valuation Cell under s. 16A of the WT Act, 1957. On the basis of the report of the Asstt. Valuation Officer, the WTO determined the value of this house property at Rs. 5,48,000 and Rs. 6,13,000 respectively. 3. The assessee appealed to the AAC of WT before whom it was contended that the property was covered under the U.P. Rent Control & Eviction Act and that a part of it was rented out and a part was in use of the assessee for residential purposes and, therefore, the valuat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1BB as was clear from sub-s. (3) of s. 7 and, therefore, the Asstt. Valuation Officer was justified in determining the value of the said 6. We have considered the rival submissions as also the facts on record. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Biju Patnaik vs. WTO (1981)12 TTJ (Del)(SB) 25 : 1 SOT 617 has held following, the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CWT vs. Laxmipat Singhania 1977 CTR (All) 225 : (1978) 111 ITR 272 (All), that r. 1BB is mandatory in nature and it binds the WTO as well as the Valuation Officers. It was further held that the Valuation Officer cannot ignore r. 1BB for valuing a residential property. Another Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of WTO vs. Seth Sudhir Kumar Modi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the WT Rules. However, the WTO shall first consider whether r. 1BB (5) is applicable in the instant case. If not, he shall value the aforesaid two portions of the house in accordance with r. 1BB. 7. The assessee has filed an extract from the order of the Tribunal dt. 18th Feb., 1987 in ITA No. 63(Del) 77-78 in the case of M/s Rohits (India) Roorkee for the asst. yr. 1973-74 which is at page 28 of the paper book. A perusal of this order goes to show that the said firm had claimed depreciation at 1/3rd of the building which one of the partners, namely, the present assessee had brought into the firm. The authorities below disallowed depreciation on the ground that the firm was not the owner of the said property. The matter came up for cons....