H. S. AHLUWALIA, J. M.: dispute in these appeals relates to value of assessee's 1/3rd share in property at 6/1/3, Queens Park, Calcutta. WTO took same at Rs. 2,86,667 adopting figure as determined in immediately preceding asst. yr. 1975-76 for first year and Rs. 1,99,100 in later year on consideration of provision of s. 7(4) of WT Act. On appeal, it was argued before AAC that property was occupied by assessee for his own residence and assessee disclosed value of property for both years at Rs. 66,667 which had been accepted by WTO in yr. 1971-72. Since exemption was claimed for said property under s. 5(1)(iv) of WT Act which was duly allowed it should be taken that WTO had accepted value of his 1/3rd interest shown by assessee for asst. yr. 1976- 77. WTO had therefore, wrongly taken value of assessee's interest at Rs. 2,86,677 because in earlier year, AAC, R-XIII had already reduced value of entire property to Rs. 3,94,000 by his order dt. 9th Jan., 1981. For asst. yr. 1977-78, WTO had referred matter to Valuation Officer who has estimated value as on 31st March, 1971 at Rs. 5,97,200 but this again was excessive. In this behalf, reliance was placed on decision of Calcutta High Court in case of J. N. Bose vs. CWT (1976) 104 ITR 83 (Cal) for deduction of 10 per cent on account of joint ownership and it was also argued that building had been so scattered on land that back portion was not capable for independent development and lastly, it was argued that s. 7(4) of WT Act had been enacted w.e.f. 1st April, 1976 and being procedural section it was applicable to both years in question. Since by disclosing its values as on 31st March, 1971, in return of wealth for asst. yr. 1976-77, assessee adopted fair market value as on 31st March, 1971 and for asst. yr. 1977-78 WTO had himself directed Valuation Officer to determine fair market value as on 31st March, 1971, value for both years should have been taken at Rs. 66,667 and WTO by referring matter of valuation of Valuation Officer under s. 16A had committed error in view of decision of Calcutta High Court reported as Satyendra Chunder Ghose vs. WTO & Ors. (1979) 12 CTR (Cal) 155: (1980) 126 ITR 102 (Cal) and of Rajasthan High Court reported as Brig. B. Lall vs. WTO (1980) 15 CTR (Raj) 180: (1981) 127 ITR 308 (Raj). AAC accepted this last arguments and directed WTO to adopt value of assessee's share at Rs. 66,667 for both years in question. Revenue has come up on second appeals before us. At time of hearing of these appeals, it was pointed out by representative of department that Valuation Officer was not present and notice should be issued to him also. We, however, found that notice had been issued to Valuation Officer twice by registered post and according to Commentary at p. 1267 of Kanga & Palkhivala in their Law & Practice of Income-tax (Seventh 1976 Edn.), it has been observed that there is presumption of effective service if notice was properly addressed, prepaid and posted by registered post. We, therefore, do not think it fit to adjourn hearing of this case to give another notice to Valuation Officer, more particularly when on last hearing, Departmental Representative only prayed for adjournment on ground that cases of other co-shares were also pending and, therefore, they should be heard together, but he never insisted upon issue of any fresh notice to Valuation Officer. Coming to merits of appeals, main issue involved is as to whether WTO having accepted value of assessee's interest in property at Rs. 66,667 in asst. yr. 1971-72 could have referred matter to Valuation Officer for determining market value of assessee's interest. As pointed out above, AAC has relied upon (1979) 12 CTR (Cal) 155: (1980) 126 ITR 102 (Cal) & (1980) 15 CTR (Raj) 180: (1981) 127 ITR 308 (Raj). We, however, find that these authorities do not decide issue in he manner in which assessee wanted us to hold. In first case, viz. Satyendra Chunder Ghose vs. WTO (1979) 12 CTR (Cal) 155: (1980) 126 ITR 102 (Cal), WTO had taken value of house property owned by assessee at 16/2 Raja Santoshpur Road at Rs. 4,00,708 which had been reduced to Rs. 2,82,000 by AAC and this figure was confirmed by Tribunal. same value was taken for asst. yrs. 1966-67 and 1967-68 and assessment for subsequent years from 1968-69 to 1974-75 onwards had already been completed on this basis. When WTO made reference to Valuation completed on this basis. When WTO made reference to Valuation Officer for purpose of re-determining market value of said property, Hon'ble High Court held that reference under s. 16A(1) or 16A(2) or 16A(4) was not valid so far as years 1967-68 to 1974-75 were concerned. But so far as asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1976-77 were concerned. conclusion of their Lordships was that Valuation Officer could proceed in accordance with law. What we mean to say is that reference to Valuation Officer was held to be invalid only qua years for which assessments had already been completed. Now there is no dispute that assessments for two years in question i.e., 1976-77 and 1977- 78 had not been completed by WTO. What was completed was only assessment for year 1971-72. Therefore, what was binding upon department was finding that assessee's interest in property had been estimated at Rs. 66,667 in asst. yr. 1971-72. But sub-s. (4) of s. 7 of WT Act does not state that value as taken in asst. yr. 1971-72 should be repeated for later years. All that it lays down is that value of one house belonging to house for residential purpose may at option of assessee be taken to be price, which in opinion of WTO, would fetch if sold in open market on valuation date relevant to assessment year, commencing first day of April, 1971. question still remains as to whether it is opinion of WTO making assessment for year 1971-72 or assessment for later year which is to be considered for purpose of sub-s. (4). Obviously, plain interpretation is that question of application of sub-s. (4) would come only when assessee has exercised his option in respect of residential house and that could not be in asst. yr. 1971-72 itself. Therefore, matter would have to be considered by WTO at time of making assessment for later year in which assessee seeks to claim benefit of sub-section: It is, therefore, clear that WTO, would have to form opinion about value of property at that time. I n Rajasthan High Court's case (supra) relied upon by AAC, assessment for year for which reference was made to Valuation Officer under s. 16A had already been completed and report of Valuation Officer was being used for purpose of reopening assessment under s. 17(1) as information within meaning of cl. (b) thereof. What their Lordships held was that this reopening on basis of that report was not permissible. On other hand, Calcutta High Court in case of Satyendra Ch. Ghose (supra), had itself held that reference could have been permissible for purpose of reopening of assessment, but since assessment were not being sought to be reopened under s. 17, reference to Valuation Officer qua these assessments was invalid. For reopening same, opinion of their Lordships was that reference to Valuation Officer might have been possible, but when assessment itself is pending, obviously there could be not bar to making reference to Valuation Officer. representative of assessee sought to support of order of AAC by referring two more authorities, namely (1983) 32 CTR (Cal) 16: (1982) 136 ITR 662 (Cal) (Smt. Uma Debi Jhawar vs. WTO & Ors.) and CIT vs. Smt. Prem Kumari (1984) 38 CTR (All) 124: (1984) 146 ITR 191 (All). So far as first case is concerned, issue again was whether assessment already made could be reviewed and revised on basis of valuation made under s. 16A because what had been alleged by assessee was that department started investigation into matter and referred question of determination of market value of Valuation Officer in respect of fully completed assessment. Valuation Officer had also proceeded to revalue properties as on relevant valuation dates for asst. yrs. 1969- 70 to 1972-73 besides years for which reference were pending. What there Lordships again held was that assessment had become find and since no assessment or reassessment proceedings were pending, initiation of proceeding under s. 16A was not valid. Obviously, when assessment itself was pending this authority would have not application. So far as other case, namely, is concerned what was decided in that case was that report of departmental valuer was only piece of evidence and could be discarded by Tribunal which had come to conclusion after taking into consideration all circumstantial evidences on record. What follows from this case is that report of Valuation Officer would not be reference to Valuation Officer itself would be bad in law. It was next argued that actual market value of property determined b y Valuation Officer as on 31st March, 1971 was not more than two lakhs and for this purpose, arguments relating to location of property, scattered nature of open land, small frontage which it had and deduction for joint ownership as urged before AAC, were reiterated. We however, find that AAC has not considered this aspect of matter. He has also not expressed any opinion as to what had happened in relation to other co-sharers of assessee and what was value adopted in respect of their shares. Under these circumstances, we are of opinion that matter requires fresh examination by AAC. While report of Valuation Officer might be binding upon WTO, it was open to AAC to come to different estimate of value thereof than one arrived at by Valuation Officer. Since he has not expressed any opinion on this aspect of matter and Valuation Officer was not actually present before us to enable us to decide entire issue ourselves, we are of opinion entire issue ourselves, we are of opinion that it would be in fitness of things that this matter is decided afresh by AAC in light of our aforesaid observations. We direct accordingly. For statistical purposes, these appeals shall be deemed to have been allowed as such. *** WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. BAL KISORE BAJORIA