1971 (11) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... let out to tenants who had been permitted to erect semi-permanent structures. The property was valued in a partition dated March 27, 1960, at Rs. 10,20,000. The assessee also relied upon an agreement under which the property was agreed to be sold for about seven lakhs of rupees some time in February, 1956, before the Wealth-tax Officer. The officer, however, found that the annual letting value of the property was Rs. 91,337 and rejecting the partition deed as well as the agreement as not affording a proper basis for arriving at value, he fixed the value at eighteen lakhs of rupees. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was also not willing to act on the basis of the agreement of 1956. The assessee, thereupon, brought to his notic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ings could be taken at Rs. 5,11,000. He, however, stated that the land should be valued at Rs. 23 per sq. yard. At that rate he arrived at the total value of Rs. 13,41,208 for the entire property and concluded that it would be fair to adopt a, value of Rs. 13.25 lakhs. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the agreement of 1954 as well as the agreement of 1956 could not be relied on. They also stated that the valuation of the architects was without basis and could not be accepted. They, however, observed that as the net income was Rs. 97,840, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's valuation of Rs. 13.25 lakhs postulated an yield of about 7.4 per cent. which was quite reasonable. Therefore, they dismissed the appeal. It is seen fro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ures may be determined separately and added. Or the capital value may be ascertained, with reference to the rental value. The valuers of the assessee adopted both methods and arrived at approximately the same figure. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner chose to adopt the first. method. He accepted the expert's valuation of the building, but chose to fix Rs. 23 per sq. yard as the value of the land. It is true that the value adopted by the expert is not binding on the officer, but in case he decides not to act upon that evidence and adopts another valuation, that valuation has to be on the basis of some material. In this case, as has already been observed, the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner does not disclose any material on w....