2005 (2) TMI 54

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was justified in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was mentioned therein as representing the fair market value of the property in the year 1986 or that there are any admissions in that regard by the appellant and its purported findings in that behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in rejecting the report dated September 20, 1994, of M/s. Talbot and Co. determining the fair market value as on April 1, 1981, at Rs. 1,35,000 per cottah on the basis of sale instances relating to properties at Wood Street and Ashoka Road, Alipore, and in estimating the value of Rs. 75,000 per cottah and its purported findings in that behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse? Mr. Deb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n to establish otherwise than what was admitted. Mr. Deb relied on the decision to support this proposition in Thiru John v. Returning Officer, AIR 1977 SC 1724. We do not think that any issue can be joined with regard to the said proposition, which is now a settled one. If there is an admission, then the party cannot get rid of such admission in respect of the valuation in the course of the proceedings. The same would become admissible for the purpose of accepting the valuation. But this proposition has to be construed on the basis of the admission made in the context in which it was so made. Admittedly, this admission was made in a compromise petition filed in a suit for partition instituted on September 10, 1956. The valuation give....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....than that. The authorities are free to agree with the finding of the report or the certificate given by an approved valuer. At the same time, if it appears to the authority that the valuation was inaccurate or unreliable, it would be open to the authority to reject the same, and if there is no other evidence with regard to the market value of the property, the authorities would be justified in computing the value on well established principles of valuation as was held in Dina Nath v. CED [1970] 77 ITR 193 (Punj). We do not find any reason to differ with the view taken in the said decision. In the present case, it can be said, as rightly contended by Mr. Deb, that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the piece of evidence being the rep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aterials to arrive at the valuation as in 1987-88 as well as in 1990-91, since accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer, which is an undisputed proposition. Now on the basis of this valuation, if a reverse calculation is made for the period as of April 1, 1981, the valuation would definitely be less than what was accepted in 1990-91 during which admittedly the valuation of properties had increased phenomenally. Therefore, it does not appear that the valuation of Rs. 5,95,800 would be too disproportionate or lower than the valuation on April 1, 1981, compared to the valuation of the same property as in 1990-91, a proposition that may not sound too unreasonable having regard to the situation as noted above. In any event when the Tribunal was ....