TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (9) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1957, and the following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for answer by this court : " Whether, the Tribunal was justified in holding that rule 1BB should be applied for valuing the property in question, even though Block No. 290-DI was let out to an office for non-residential purposes ? " The brief facts giving rise to this reference are that the assessee is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion to sub-section (4) of section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the above submissions of the assessee and accordingly valued Block No. 290-DI at Rs. 2,73,000 for the assessment year 1979-80 and for Rs. 3,00,000 for the assessment year 1980-81 and the value of Block No. 290-D, i.e., the let out portion was taken at Rs. 2,13,500, in terms of r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned counsel submitted that rule 1BB of the Rules is not applicable to the case of the assessee ; therefore, there was no occasion to have remanded the case to the Wealth-tax Officer for reassessment. As against this, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the view taken in the case of Biju Patnaik was affirmed by the Supreme Court in another case of CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup and Sons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered opinion that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is such that it cannot be sustained in law. We set aside his order along with the order of the Wealth-tax Officer for both the years and direct the Wealth-tax Officer to value the property of the let out portion as well as of the self-occupied portion in accordance with the judgment of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case....