F.C. RUSTAGI, J.M. Since certain common disputes are raised in these two cross-matters, appeal by Revenue and crores objection by assessee, both were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order for sake of convenience. first ground in Revenue's appeal pertains to valuation of Delhi property held by assessee on Tees Hazary Marg and similarly 1 to 8 grounds of assessee's cross objection are also regarding valuation of same property. facts in background shortly to be stated are that assessee had purchased property in 1961 for sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. On its major renovation etc., and additions about Rs. 2.35 lakh were spent. assessee on this basis had shown value of said property at Rs. 4.35 lakh for wealth- tax assessment purposes for year 1964-65. WTO on basis of official valuer's report had assigned value of said property at Rs. 12,24,000 but when matter came before CWT (A), he assigned value at Rs. 8,40,249. This valuation left Revenue aggrieved and after it came in appeal, assessee also thought of coming in cross objection and putting its fight even against valuation of Rs. 8,40,249. Valuation of this very property has been subject-matter of appeal before us in subsequent years. But situation had been different in those years, due to coming of r. 1BB on statute, which was not so for year under consideration. ld. Senior Departmental Representative Shri R.K. Bali after going through voluminous paperbook, submitted that it was huge property and there is not much difference between valuation of construction assigned by approved valuer and by official valuer. only dispute is regarding land rate. He submitted that WTO had valued property on valuation report, which was based on comparative instances and other important aspects of nearby locality. ld. counsel for assessee Shri Akhil B. Gupta, on other hand, besides relying on order of CWT(A) in respect of Revenue's appeal, contended kly that even value of Rs. 8,40,249 assigned by CWT(A) is on higher side. He submitted that Tees Hazary Marg is in worse position than Prithviraj road and Aurangzeb road properties, which are taken for comparison. He also submitted that, Delhi Bench of Tribunal in case of Smt. Sita Nanda WTA Nos. 672 etc./Del/81 dt. 19th Sept., 1983 had adjudicated issue against Revenue and in light of said decision, value shown by assessee should be accepted. After taking into consideration rival submissions, we are unable to accept contention of ld. counsel for assessee that even for year under consideration, r. 1-BB should be made applicable. Strictly speaking, if we peruse order of CWT(A), we even find that value given by him as per r. 1-BB shall be about Rs. 8,39,980. We are intentionally avoiding encumbering this order with lengthy facts and contentions, which are well recorded in order of CWT(A). We are unable to appreciate contention of ld. counsel for assessee that since in immediately next year, value was taken at lesser amount, therefore, it should be repeated because it is trite law by now that every assessment year is independent and there is no place for res judicata in Income- tax and Wealth-tax proceedings. Delhi Bench decision cannot come to rescue of assessee. Though it was within rights of assessee to have raised dispute in cross-objection but very fact that initially there was no appeal and assessee elected only to come in cross objection, it shows that he was not aggrieved by decision of CWT(A). When we peruse two reports that of approved valuer and official cell, we don't find much difference in figures worked out about valuation of structure, to which both parties agreed. Their main contention was that land rate around property was taken at higher figure by official cell. major difference in two valuations stands discussed at length by CWT(A) in para 4(ii) of his order. This is no dispute about fact that property in question was no rent but good lot of land was around which was vacant and it could be put to potential use. total area of land was 7613 sq. yds. Tees Hazary Marg, if compared with Aurangzeb Road and/or Prithviraj Road, there may not be much difference, though we are in agreement with ld. counsel for assessee that different rules were provided by New Delhi Municipal Corporation for two areas. element of unearned increase in price which goes back to land development also cannot be ignored. There is no dispute about fact that during year under consideration, property was not tenanted. It was only subsequently that it was rented out @ Rs. 9,000 p.m. for building and @ Rs. 3,000 p.m. for furniture etc. There is also no denying fact that there was potentiality for extra land. We are unable to appreciate fact projected by ld. counsel for assessee that valuation by approved valuer was based on correct method because property in question was valued for 1970-71 and its valuation was taken on reduced basis pertaining to earlier years. There is no dispute about fact that area was over 7,000 sq. yds. property was purchased for Rs. 2 lakh but was renovated by spending another Rs. 2.35 lakh and 50 per cent of appreciation of land and purchase by anyone as unearned increase would have gone to Govt. This is also true that values of property do depend on locality, size and potentiality. Nothing could much turn, according to us, on correspondence between trustee of property and assessee regarding its sale which was originally fixed but was backed out 1972-73. As observed above, there is difference of restrictions between Prithviraj road, Aurangazeb Road and Tees Hazary Marg property but at same time once property in Aug., 1965 was sold for Rs. 17 lakh with area of 5700 sq. ft. land rate worked out to Rs. 164 per sq. yd. There are instances which are given at Prithviraj Road and Aurangzeb Road operative from 27th March, 1966. When we go carefully through valuation report, we find that official valuer had taken into consideration totality of circumstances while adopting land rate and while finally assigning land rate, he observed that: "......Tees Hazary Marg is not as wide as Prithviraj Road and Aurangzeb Road and since sale instances quoted by me pertain to properties located on Prithviraj Road and Aurangzeb Road and also considering that land and development office has also announced lower rate for properties located on Tees Hazary Marg in 1974 than rate made applicable to properties at Prithvi Raj road and Aurangzeb road in corresponding period, I have allowed reduction of 5 per cent in land rates in 1970 in final valuation." This was undoubtedly lower but CWT(A) while adopting land rate had been too conservative when he assigned total valuation at Rs. 8,40,249. We also observe that commercial use of said property was not in sight with valuer when he adopted land rate. In subsequent year, assessee got valuer when he adopted land rate. In subsequent year, assessee got benefit of r. 1BB which could not be basis for reduction during year under consideration. Taking into consideration totality of circumstances, we find that valuation report, on one hand, is somewhat higher but estimate adopted by CWT(A) is somewhat lower, value as r. 1BB, though not applicable during year under consideration, has also brought value in vicinity of estimate pitched by him regarding value of property. Under circumstances, we are of view that in case valuation of property is assigned at Rs. 10 lakh (Rs. Ten lakh only), it will meet ends of justice. Regarding other grounds pertaining to deduction of liability on account of tax and penalty, we had occasion to deal with this issue earlier in assessee's own case. According to us, penalties are not be deducted out of assessable wealth whereas taxes are to be taken into account. Ground No. 2 is covered against Revenue as per our decision in assessee's own case and 162 ITR 166(sic) and similarly issue regarding penalty which is raised by assessee in cross objection is also covered against assessee. But since figures are not available for relevant assessment year in respect of both and principles are enunciated therein in our earlier order, we are of view matter must go back to file of WTO who will decide issues in view of Supreme Court decisions in cases of CWT vs. K.S.N. Bhatt (1983) 37 CTR (SC) 273: (1984) 145 ITR 1 (SC) and CWT vs. Kantilal Manilal (1983) 45 CTR (SC) 220: (1985) 152 ITR 447 (SC). In result, revenue's appeal shall be treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and assessee's cross objection is dismissed. *** WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. AMARINDER SINGH