1 2 to 5 01. D.B. CIVIL WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO. 2/2006 [COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX -I VS. SH. SHOBHAG SINGH] 02. D.B. CIVIL WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO. 3/2006 [COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX -I VS. SH. SHOBHAG SINGH] 03.D.B. CIVIL WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO. 4/2006 [COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX -I VS. SH. SHOBHAG SINGH] 04. D.B. CIVIL WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO5/2006 [COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX -I VS. SH. SHOBHAG SINGH] Date of Order : 02.08.2007 HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. K.K.Bissa for the petitioner. Mr.Anjay Kothari for the respondent. ***** After the review was granted and the order deciding this appeal dated 09.03.2006 have been recalled at the request of both the counsel we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the appeals which were earlier dismissed in limine. The Revenue on whose behalf these appeals have been filed have suggested following questions of law as substantial questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated 01.11.2004 and relates to Assessment Year 1989-90, 1990-91, 2 1991-92 and 1992-93 respectively. The questions common to all the appeals are as under:- [A] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned WTAT was justified in directing the AO to adopt the value of Ajit Bhawan on the basis of local PWD rates and not as per CPWD rates ignoring the facts that assessee had already accepted under KVSS the value determined for earlier years on the basis of CPWD rates? [b] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned WTAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.199,200/- made by AO by taking appreciated value of FDR of Rs.35,000/- held with Oriental hotel without examining the relevant issue in entirety and ignoring the fact that assessee had already accepted such addition in earlier years under KVSS? [c] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned WTAT was justified in confirming the order of CWT (A) regarding deletion of addition of Rs.32,30,000 made on account of Janana portion ignoring facts that Janana portion comprises the land/plots behind Ajit Bhawan and these assets were not included in the valuation of Ajit Bhawan? [d] Whether the finding arrived at by the learned WTAT on the above issues are contrary to law and facts and perverse? Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that only question that can be considered as question of law is question No.1-A and rest of the questions can really not be considered as questions of law. 3 As far as question No.1-A is concerned though it is a question of law but is governed by a series of decision by this Court. The Assessing Officer has valued the property know as Ajit Bhawan situated at Jodhpur on the basis of the valuation report submitted by the Valuation Officer of the Department who has valued the same by applying the CPWD rates. The appellate Commissioner as well as the Tribunal has modified the valuation made by the Valuation Officer by directing to apply the PWD State rates for valuing the property instead of the CPWD rates as the property is not situated in the Union Territory. This issue was before this court in CIT Vs. Dinesh Talwar reported in 265 ITR [Raj.] 344, this Court has viewed that for the property situated within the State Of Rajasthan and owned by persons residing in Rajasthan the proper rates to be applied which can be acceptable are the states PWD rates. The CPWD rates for valuing properties in Rajasthan situated at different placed constructed under different circumstances the rates of CPWD does not provide the true standard. In view of the aforesaid decision it ceases to be question of law to be decided again by this court. So far as question No.C is concerned also relate to the 4 valuation of Ajit Bhawan. While the Assessing Officer has made additions in the valuation of the Ajit Bhawan by considering the Jannana portion [residence for women] to be not a part of Ajit Bhawan and an independent property. However, both the appellate authorities have found concurrently the Jannana portion as a part of Ajit Bhawan, whose valuation has been included in the value of Ajit Bhawan made by the valuer. The question whether the Jannana portion is a part of Ajit Bhawan, is a finding of fact and does not give rise to the question of law. Similarly question No.B which relates to the additions made on account of number of FDRs in different names which have been clubbed and added in the wealth of assessee. Both the appellate authorities have found that only a FDR of Rs.35,000/- belongs to which is in the names of assessee and is includable in the wealth of assessee but other FDR's which stand in the name of different persons are not the wealth of assessee. This also is a finding of fact and does not give rise to question of law. The last question raised by the Revenue is too vague or general question to be considered as a question of law. In that view of the matter, we do not find that no substantial 5 question of law arise for consideration in these appeals in terms of Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals are accordingly, dismissed. (MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA),J. (RAJESH BALIA ), J. /mamta/