TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (3) TMI 129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty. The facts in the background shortly to be stated are that the assessee had purchased a property in 1961 for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. On its major renovation etc., and additions about Rs. 2.35 lakh were spent. The assessee on this basis had shown the value of the said property at Rs. 4.35 lakh for wealth-tax assessment purposes for the year 1964-65. The WTO on the basis of official valuer's report had assigned the value of the said property at Rs. 12,24,000 but when the matter came before the CWT (A), he assigned the value at Rs. 8,40,249. This valuation left the Revenue aggrieved and after it came in appeal, the assessee also thought of coming in cross objection and putting its fight even against the valuation of Rs. 8,40,249. Valuation o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee that even for the year under consideration, r. 1-BB should be made applicable. Strictly speaking, if we peruse the order of CWT(A), we even find that value given by him as per r. 1-BB shall be about Rs. 8,39,980. We are intentionally avoiding encumbering this order with the lengthy facts and contentions, which are well recorded in the order of the CWT(A). We are unable to appreciate the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee that since in the immediately next year, value was taken at lesser amount, therefore, it should be repeated because it is trite law by now that every assessment year is independent and there is no place for res judicata in Income-tax and Wealth-tax proceedings. The Delhi Bench decision cannot come to the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd @ Rs. 3,000 p.m. for furniture etc. There is also no denying the fact that there was potentiality for extra land. We are unable to appreciate the fact projected by the ld. counsel for the assessee that valuation by the approved valuer was based on correct method because the property in question was valued for 1970-71 and its valuation was taken on reduced basis pertaining to earlier years. There is no dispute about the fact that the area was over 7,000 sq. yds. The property was purchased for Rs. 2 lakh but was renovated by spending another Rs. 2.35 lakh and 50 per cent of the appreciation of land and purchase by anyone as unearned increase would have gone to the Govt. This is also true that values of property do depend on locality, size ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Rs. 8,40,249. We also observe that commercial use of the said property was not in sight with the valuer when he adopted the land rate. In subsequent year, the assessee got the benefit of r. 1BB which could not be the basis for reduction during the year under consideration. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, we find that valuation report, on the one hand, is somewhat higher but the estimate adopted by the CWT(A) is somewhat lower, value as r. 1BB, though not applicable during the year under consideration, has also brought the value in vicinity of the estimate pitched by him regarding the value of the property. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that in case valuation of the property is assigned at Rs. 10 lak....