2004 (9) TMI 21

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....79-80: "1. Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the rental method, even when the property in question was entirely let out to various tenants? 2. Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the assessment of the value of Shamlat Deh in the hands of the assessee?" The assessee-Hindu undivided family is a wealth-tax assessee and for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1978-79 and 1979-80, the assessee declared the value of one immovable property being factory building at Tanda Road, Jalandhar, and valuation thereof was given as follows: Assessment year Value declared (Rs.) 1974-75  5,11,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore, did not permit the assessee to raise the contention that the immovable property be valued on the basis of the rental method. The Tribunal, thereafter, upheld the valuation as determined by the District Valuation Officer on the merits as well. It observed that the District Valuation Officer had duly afforded an opportunity to the assessee to raise objections, if any, but the assessee failed to do so. Even before the Tribunal, the assessee had not brought any material to substantiate its challenge to the report of the District Valuation Officer that the valuation should have been made on the basis of the rental method. The contention of the assessee that he was the owner only to the extent of 170 marlas out of 527 marlas, the remain....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion as per the District Valuation Officer's report was in any manner erroneous. It is also borne out from the record that the assessee had failed to bring any material on record to substantiate his claim about valuation even before the Tribunal. Question No. 1 is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Coming to the claim of the assessee that he was the owner of land only to the extent of 170 marlas out of the total area of 527 marlas, we find that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are pure findings of fact. It has not been disputed that the assessee had declared himself to be the owner of the whole land in the wealth-tax returns for the assessment years 1968-69 onwards.....