The valuation of immovable property under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, must be based on intelligent guesswork based on objective factors that have a rational nexus with the valuation.

( 1 ) IN this case we are concerned with valuation of certain property under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. This relates to the assessment years 1962-63 to 1964-65. The problem is regarding the valuation of half share of the house property situated and lying at No. 2, Justice Chandra Madhab Road, Calcutta, for the purpose of computation of net wealth of the assessee under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The assessee is the owner of undivided half share of the aforesaid property, the other half being owned by his brother. A. N. Bose. It is recorded in the order of the Tribunal that the property had not been partitioned between the co-owners. The property waft let out on lease for 15 years with effect from the 1st of August, 1950, to the 31st July, 1965, to India Automobiles on a monthly rent of Rs. 7,500. It is stated that there was an option for a further term of five years. According to the terms of the lease the lessors were entitled to receive Rs. 90,000 per annum inclusive of municipal taxes amounting to Rs. 4,878. 16 per annum. There was an option for renewal of the lease. In the wealth-tax returns for the aforesaid years the assessee had shown the valuation of the property as representing his half share at Rs. 4,31,499. The said valuation was arrived at on the basis of an earlier order of the Tribunal in the W. T. As. Nos. 157 and 158 of 1960-61, dated the 14th August, 1961, with regard to the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59. In the said order of the Tribunal the Tribunal has made the valuation after taking into account the valuation report of M/s. Talbot and Company, Surveyors and Valuers. But the Tribunal had modified the valuation made by the said M/s. Talbot and Company to the effect that the Tribunal had held that while the valuer had suggested that the rate of expected yield should be taken at 8%, the Tribunal was of the opinion that it should be taken at 7% and the allowance for the undivided share of the property should be taken at 10% instead of 20%. The face value of the property Vas taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 8,62,997 and the assessee's half share thus came to Rs. 4,31,499. In the said appeal it had been contended on behalf of the revenue that the assessee's tenant was getting a rent of Rs. 90,000 for a per of the property sublet and, therefore, it was reasonable to presume that when the lease expired the assessee would be in a position to get better rent. The Tribunal observed that this ignored an important fact in the sense that the Tribunal was concerned in that appeal with the market value of the share of the property as on the date of valuation subject to the handicaps and disabilities that existed on the date of valuation. Taking all these factors into consideration the Tribunal had arrived at the figure mentioned hereinbefore. In their report, Messrs. Talbot and Company had given the location of the property and had mentioned about the basis in which they had indicated in respect of two sales, one being a sale dated the 31st August, 1960, regarding 5/6ths share of Ezra Mansion for Rs. 5,00,000 with IV-storeyed blocks of buildings having frontages on Old Court House Street, Waterloo Street and Dacres Lane, land area about 44 kottahs yielding a total monthly rent of Rs. 8,000 and the other which was a sale dated (?) August, 1960, regarding 5/6ths share of Chowringhee Mansion for Rs. 11,470. 58, land area 84 kottahs with IV-storeyed blocks of buildings having frontages on Park Street, Chowringhee Road and Kyd Street, yielding a total monthly rent of Rs. 10,970. 83. For the relevent years with which we are concerned the Wealth-tax Officer did not agree with the estimated value of the property and fixed the sum of Rs. 13,59,960. His basis of estimate was rental income multiplied by 20 times. The half share of the same came to Rs. 6,79,980 which was taken as the assessee's share.

( 2 ) THERE was an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Assistant Commissione