This appeal is by assessee Shri M. Hashmath relating to his wealth-tax assessment for year 1977-78. assessee was co-owner of certain property being Nos. 2 & 3/155, Mount Road, Madras having 1/6th share therein. dispute raised in grounds of appeal pertains to determination of value of assessee s 1/6th share in said property. AAC determined value of 1/6th share of assessee in property concerned at Rs. 4,84,543 by adding 10 per cent appreciation over value determined by him for asst. yr. 1976-77 at Rs. 4,40,495 instead of value of Rs. 6 lakhs adopted by WTO. At hearing of this appeal, ld. Representative for assessee submitted that in appeal taken against determination of value of 1/6th share at Rs. 4,40,495 in case of another co-owner of property Shri M. Ishrath Tribunal has sustained value determined by AAC at Rs. 4,40,495. He, however, submitted that having regard to principles and basis for determination of value of property set down by Tribunal in its order, there is no scope for any increase in value adopted for earlier year. He pointed out that in that order Tribunal has rejected contention on behalf of assessee that though property was let out actual rent received by assessee should not be determining factor for arriving at value of property because that rent did not represent reasonable or normal rent and had reached conclusion that actual rent received by assessee should be considered fore capitalisation and when so considered there is no difference between assessee s and AAC s working in regard to method of arriving at various expenses etc., deductible from gross rent as well as multiple to be adopted for purpose of capitalisation. Thus, it is pointed out that Tribunal has fixed actual rent as basis for determining value of property for purpose of capitalisation. It is submitted that valuation on basis of actual rent realised by assessee during relevant previous year ending on valuation date is only Rs. 4,24,860 as against Rs. 5,76,497 in earlier year on account of vacancy, etc., and though according to actual rent it would appear that value of property should be even less than what was determined for earlier year there is no scope in any case to adopt higher value by adding 10 per cent depreciation and that he would be satisfied if value is retained at what was determined for earlier year. ld. Departmental Representative merely relied on order of AAC. On consideration of facts and submissions of parties, we think there is considerable force in assessee s submission. Undisputedly earlier order of Tribunal shows that basis of determining value of capitalising annual income of property is actual rent and not any notional rent and if that be criterion we fail to see how, when there is no increase in rent received, higher value than that taken for earlier year could be adopted for this year. We, therefore, held that for year under consideration also same value of Rs. 4,40,495 should be determined as value of assessee s 1/6th share in property. value is accordingly reduced. appeal is partly allowed. *** M. HASHMATH v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER