Cwt Vs. Masood Halim

head note: income tax wealth tax valuation--immovable propertyresidential propertyvaluation as disclosed by the assessee owning certain immovable properties including a house was not accepted by wto. held: assessee was to be given the benefit of rule 1bb, of the wealth tax rules, while computing the value of residential property. in the allahabad high court r.k. agrawal & prakash krishna, jj. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammadorderby the court the income tax appellate tribunal, allahabad, has referred the following questions of law under section 27(3) of the wealth tax act, 1957 ('the act) for opinion to this court:'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income tax appellate tribunal was correct, in law in directing the computation of the value of the residential property in accordance with rule ibb of the wealth-tax rules, which came into force on 1-4-1979?'2. the reference relates to the assessment year 1974-75.3. briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :the respondent-assessee is an individual and owns certain immovable properties including house no. 101/59, ahata gammu khan, kanpur, which was occupied by the respondent-assessee for his residence. the valuation as disclosed by the respondent-assessee was not accepted by the wealth-tax officer who raised it to rs. 45,700. however, in appeal; the appellate asstt. commissioner has given the benefit of rule i bb of the rules, which has been upheld by the tribunal.4. in the case of cwt v. sharvan kumar swarup & sons : 1995ecr425(sc) , rule 1bb having been held by this apex court to be retrospective in nature, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the tribunal.5. in this view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. there shall be no order as to costs.