TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (6) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stion posed would not be really necessary and if the Wealth-tax Officer had been given his own statutory powers and necessary freedom, the Tribunal would have been more than justified. Instead, the Tribunal has fixed the valuation of the property in question and proceeded to pass directions of a remand order. Only this needs modification, because when the statutory provisions are more than clear a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thereafter the remaining land of 92 1/2 cents came to be valued at Rs. 3,70,000 at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per cent. Since the two assessees had equal shares, each of them came to be assessed at Rs. 2,35,000 in respect of the property. This was confirmed by the first appellate authority by the order dated September 20, 1983. The Tribunal, therefore, got concerned with two independent appeals of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yer. On the basis of the material on record, it was submitted that the property has to be valued in accordance with rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules. It was also submitted that the provisions of section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, are also necessary to be looked into. In connection with the above provision, it was submitted that the value would come to about Rs. 1,75,000. It was submitted o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence, there is an additional direction of freezing the value of the residential property at Rs. 1,75,000. In our judgment, the Wealth-tax Officer should have been free to consider the situation in the light of the provisions of section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as well as rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules in regard to the question of valuation of the property in question. That order of the ....