CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. DROPADI J NAGPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated May 29, 1981, under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter called as "the Act") :

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Jaipur, adopted the value of immovable property known as "Nagpal Hotel" at Rs. 5,61,000 on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer and the deceased's (Lal). Nagpal's) one-third share was worked out at Rs. 1,52,490. THE said property was valued by the Wealth-tax Officer at a figure of Rs. 3,73,169. THE Assistant Controller of Estate Duty found that the immovable property under consideration was divided into two parts, the first part relating to the ground floor given to the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and this portion has been valued on the rental method keeping in view the fair rent at Rs. 2,200 per month. THE rent for the period from July 2, 1971, to June 26, 1974, was paid at Rs. 1,400 per month and the premises were vacated by the court's order and subsequently it was given to Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. at Rs. 3,200 per month and as such a fair rent was considered at Rs. 2,200 on June 7, 1973. In respect of the first and second floor, the said premises were used by the deceased for hotel purposes and were valued by the Valuation Officer ignoring the wealth-tax assessment. THE Assistant Controller of Estate Duty adopted the valuation report of the Valuation Officer at Rs. 5,61,000. In appeal before the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, it was submitted that according to the valuer's report submitted by the accountable person the valuation of the entire hotel property has been shown at Rs. 2,31,500. It was also pointed out that in the wealth-tax assessment for the period ending on June 30, 1973, the Wealth-tax Officer for the assessment year 1974-75 had estimated the value of the property at Rs. 3,73,169. It was reduced in appeal to Rs. 3,28,380. THE Appellate Controller accepted the plea of the accountable person that for the purpose of Estate Duty the value as determined under the wealth-tax assessment has to be adopted.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the reference is answered in favour of the accountable person and against the Revenue.