Ashok Bhan, J.@mdashThis appeal has been preferred u/s 27A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act"). It is directed against the appellate order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short "the Tribunal"), in the respondent-assessee''s case in respect of wealth-tax assessment for the assessment year 1987-88. The appeal is confined against the order of the Tribunal in so far as it relates to the point involved in W. T. A. No. 127/(Bang) of 1992, only.
2. The facts occasioning the filing of this appeal briefly stated are :
In relation to the assessment year 1987-88 relevant for the valuation date ending on March 31, 1987, the Wealth-tax Officer passed the assessment order u/s 16(3) of the Act. While concluding the assessment, the Wealth-tax Officer determined the value of the immovable property of the assessee situated at No. 3/1-2, Ali Askar Road, Bangalore, at Rs. 1,37,66,663.
3. Aggrieved by the said order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the jurisdictional Appellate Commissioner of Income Tax assailing the valuation of the aforesaid immovable property as made by the assessing authority. Apart from the said ground, the assessee had also assailed the order of assessment on certain other grounds as well. In so far as the ground relating to valuation of immovable property at Ali Askar Road is concerned, the Appellate Commissioner held that the matter regarding valuation of the said property had been referred to the District Valuation Officer (for short, "the DVO") who had sent a detailed valuation report on November 11, 1991, estimating the fair market value of the portion of the property comprising 3,450.60 sq. m. of open land at Rs. 49,01,200. The Appellate Commissioner eventually directed the assessing authority to adopt the value of the open land at Rs. 49,01,200 as estimated by the District Valuation Officer, Bangalore.
4. The Revenue preferred an appeal against the said appellate order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated April 7, 1988, dismissed the Revenue''s appeal by passing the following order :
"This is a departmental appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In the wealth-tax assessments, the Wealth-tax Officer had adopted the value of a piece of land located at Ali Askar Road, Bangalore, at the rate of Rs. 500 per sq. ft., stated to be based on information obtained from the appropriate authority of the Income Tax Department. This was contested before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), however, referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Cell and got a valuation report prepared by that cell in accordance with which the value of the property should be taken at Rs. 49,01,200. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to accept this valuation.
We fail to understand, when the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) has directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the valuation as made by the Departmental Valuation Officer, what grouse the Department can have against such valuation. The appeal thus seems to be, totally a frivolous one. Hence, we dismiss the Departmental appeal."
5. The assessee had also preferred an appeal against the appellate order of the Commissioner being W. T. A. No. 127(Bang) of 1992, before the Tribunal. The assessee had also preferred appeals for the other years, namely, assessment years 1988-89 to 1991-92, being W. T. A. Nos. 181 to 184 (Bang) of 1993. The appeals were disposed of by a common order. As indicated earlier, the Revenue has directed the present appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal in W. T. A. No. 127 (Bang) of 1992 only.
6. The Assessing Officer valued the property at Rs. 1,37,66,663 on the land and building method by the Assessing Officer. On the objection taken by the assessee that the valuation should have been referred to the Valuation Cell, u/s 16A of the Act, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer. The District . Valuation Officer sent a detailed report estimating the fair market value of the property at Rs. 49,01,200. For the year under consideration the notice u/s 16A(4) of the Act was issued by the District Valuation Officer on 29th of September, 1991. So the case was still pending. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
"We may now turn to the scope and content of Rule 1BB. The said rule merely provides a choice amongst well-known and well-settled modes of valuation. Even in the absence of Rule 1BB it would not have been objectionable, nor would there be any legal impediment, to adopt the mode of valuation embodied in Rule 1BB, namely, the method of capitalisation of income on a number of years'' purchase value. The rule was intended to impart uniformity in valuations and to avoid vagaries and disparities resulting from application of different modes of valuation in different cases where the nature of the property is similar.
Rule 1BB thus partakes of the character of a rule of evidence. It deems the market value to be the one arrived at on the application of a particular method of valuation which is also one of the recognised and accepted methods. Even if a law raises a presumption and renders the presumption irrebuttable it is yet in the domain of the law of evidence. In
''It would be noticed that as in the case of a rebuttable presumption, so in the case of an irrebuttable presumption, the rule purports to assist the judicial mind in appreciating the existence of facts. In one case, the probative value is statutorily strengthened but yet left open to rebuttal, in the other case, it is statutorily strengthened and placed beyond the pale of rebuttal. Considered from this point of view, it seems rather difficult to accept the theory that whereas a rebuttable presumption is within the domain of the law of evidence, an irrebuttable presumption is outside the domain of that law and forms part of the substantive law.''
On a consideration of the matter, we are persuaded to the view that Rule 1BB is essentially a rule of evidence as to the choice of one of the well-accepted methods of valuation in respect of certain kinds of properties with a view to achieving uniformity in valuation and avoiding disparate valuations resulting from application of different methods of valuation respecting properties of a similar nature and character. The view taken by the High Courts, in our opinion, cannot be said to be erroneous."
7. A Division Bench of this court in
"Schedule III introduced in the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, with effect from April 1, 1989, is procedural and not substantive and all matters which were pending on April 1, 1989, are covered by the said Schedule. The market value in all such cases has to be determined in accordance with Schedule III."
8. Counsel appearing for the Revenue argued that since the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue determining the value of the property at Rs. 49,01,200, it was not open to the Tribunal to direct the District Valuation Officer to value the property by applying Schedule III in the appeal filed by the assessee. We do not find substance in this submission. The Revenue in its appeal had challenged the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) to the extent it went against the Department. It could not deprive the assessee to challenge the said valuation in its appeal. The order passed in the appeal filed by the Revenue would not operate as res judicata in the appeal filed by the assessee as the point involved in both the appeals is different and distinct. The point regarding the applicability of Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act and Rule 1BB had not been examined by the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the Revenue. On the merits we find that the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this court referred to above. As the matter stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this court ; referable questions of law do not arise from the order of the Tribunal. Dismissed.
