TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (10) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the rates prevalent on 31st March, 1975 and the second audit objection was that the excess payment of advance-tax being an asset was not included in the total wealth. The WTO issued a notice u/s 35 in response to which the assessee filed a reply on 3rd Dec., 1976 stating therein the reasons for its non-acceptance. However, the WTO was not satisfied with assessee's reply and he revised the order u/s 35 of the Act on 10th Dec., 1976. 3. The CWT perusing the wealth-tax records relating to the assessee's assets and assessment was of the view that the orders passed by the WTO dated 18th Nov., 1975 and 10th Dec., 1976 were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and he issued a notice u/s 25(2) of the WT Act. The view of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted and sanctioned in the name of the wife of the assessee and though the land was in the name of the wife, the house was constructed by the assessee with the amount withdrawn from his account. The income from the house was shown by the assessee and was taxed accordingly in the hands of the assessee under the IT Act as well as WT Act since the beginning. Therefore the submission of the assessee was that the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 5(1)(iv). It was contended by the assessee that there was valuation report of 1968 and the property including the cost of land was estimated at Rs. 1,52,000. As per the valuation report dated 15th May, 1972 the value was estimated at Rs. 1,48,693. It was stated that the value shown by the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arding the value of the property, Shri Shah stated that though earlier the value was shown at a higher figure, it was shown by the assessee at a lesser figure because of second Valuer's report who had worked out the correct method of valuation considering the fact that the entire building is rented out and, therefore, the valuation of such a building is concerned, one has to take into account only the rental method. Therefore, the value shown by the assessee at Rs. 1,48,693 was the correct market value. The valuer has given the value at Rs. 1,48,693 and that he has considered the aspect that the building was rented. Therefore, according to Shri Shah, there is no justification to reject the valuer's report who has valued the property at Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O erred in accepting the value shown by the assessee at Rs.1,48,693.00. 11. Regarding jewellery, the learned Departmental Representative argued that the details were not there and, therefore, the Commissioner was right in directing the WTO to again valued the gold ornaments. 12. Regarding the Income-tax refunds, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the CWT. 13. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the view that the assessee deserves to succeed. At the very outset, it must be stated that the first valuation report showed the value of the property at Rs.1,52,000.00 where as the second valuation report showed the valued of property at Rs.1,48,693.00. The second valuer has also taken into account the aspect....