1982 (5) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and correct in holding that the value of the plot on the relevant valuation date was Rs. 21,200 which is the premium paid by the assessee, following the decision of the Tribunal dated May 10, 1976, in W.T.A. Nos. 592 to 594/74-75 in the case of Miss Beneeta Seth, which has been agitated by the Department in reference application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act ? " The following question is said to arise in relation to three of the assessment years: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in fixing the value of the structure at Rs. 1,43,120 for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 and Rs. 2,06,229 for the assessment year 1974....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n open market did exist. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ahmed G. H. Ariff v. CWT [1970] 76 ITR 471. No doubt, in that case, the court held that if a property was wakf-alal-aulad which was not transferable, it could be assumed that there was an open market, and, hence, the value could be found. On this principle, the learned counsel urged that the value had to be fixed on the basis that there was a free market and free sale was permissible. However, it does not appear that the Supreme Court laid down any principle regarding the method of valuation in the said case. It only held that the property could not be valued at nil on the footing that it was not transferable. We think the case is distinguishable on othe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Court in P. N. Sikand's case [1977] 107 ITR 922. So, we hold that no stateable question of law arises regarding the method of valuation adopted relating to non-transferable plots. It seems to us to involve purely a question of fact and no reference can be called for regarding the first question. Turning to the second question which relates to the valuation of the structure built on the property, we do not find this question mentioned in the order of the Tribunal. It was never urged that Circular No. 3 WT of 1957 was withdrawn. We cannot examine a new question not arising out of the Tribunal's order. There is a reference to the circular on the footing that the valuation should not be disturbed every year and should be kept for at least t....