F.C. RUSTAGI, J.M. This is appeal referred by Revenue, in case of Shri O.P. Shingla HUF (Specified) pertaining to asst. yr. 1980--81 in which four grounds are raised first pertaining to valuation of agricultural land by assessee, second regarding inclusion of Mehrauli land in hands of HUF which was so taken by WTO but deleted by CWT (A), third regarding valuation of immovable properties comprising of factories and residential houses and fourth regarding addition of properties which, according to assessee, belonged to still larger HUF of Pool Chand Gajju Ram. third ground pertaining to valuation of immovable properties comprising of factories and residential houses is neither very clear nor happily worded. Still facts in background of said ground of appeal and contentions and finding available in CWT(A)'s order are lucid, we are able to dispose of same with assistance of both ld. counsel for parties, from whom many clarifications were sought in course of hearing. Since facts pertaining to filing of return originally showing lesser amount of wealth and subsequently revising same and properties and lands held by assessee are not only detailed in assessment order but also repeated in order of CWT(A), we intentionally avoid encumbering this order with those facts and come to grounds individually seriatim. first ground reads as under: "On facts and in circumstances of case, CWT(A) has erred in law in allowing deduction of Rs. 1,90,000 in valuation of agricultural land". Briefly to state facts in background of this issue, there was agricultural land covering 18 acres or so in which assessee held 1/3rd share. This land was composed of 'chahi', 'nehri', 'Banjar' and gair-mumkin and some of banjar and was not in possession of assessee. This particular assessee had only 1/3rd share in total area of agricultural land. In statement of wealth, assessee had disclosed 13.66 acres being total area of land-both in original and revised return. He had taken value of same @ Rs. 7,000 per acre pitching valuation at Rs. 95,630, which was revised to Rs. 1,10,000 by taking valuation @ Rs. 8,000 per acre in revised return. value of agricultural land was adopted at Rs. 1,10,000 per acre in immediately preceding year also. said land was on 'batai' and during year under consideration gave yield of Rs. 25,000. WTO on basis of yield applied multiple of 12 and worked out valuation of same at Rs. 3 lakh. When assessee came before CIT(A), he accepted contention of assessee in respect of this ground as per paras 7 to 9 of his order. Disputing said finding of CIT(A), ld. Senior departmental representative Mr. R.K. Bali submitted that once said land is giving as good yield as of Rs. 25,000 year, its valuation in sum of Rs. 25,000 year, its valuation in sum of Rs. 3 lakh was not on higher side at all. He pointed out to page 14 of revenue's paper book and agreed that as per valuation assigned by Department, same can be Rs. 5,478 but according to him, that could not be basis. Firstly, because assessee had himself returned land value @ Rs. 8,000 per acre and secondly pointing out to page 14A of revenue's paper book, he submitted that agricultural income from said land in hands of assessee himself had been Rs. 25,500, Rs. 28,870 and Rs. 28,170 for consecutively three asst. yrs. 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. Then he relied upon Supreme Court decision in case of P. Veerabhadarappa etc. (1984) 17 ITR 277, copy of which also be made available to us. He said that though that was case in respect of land acquisition of property but multiplication of yield had found favour with their Lordships and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in WTO's order. He also submitted that assessee is not justified to value only 13.66 acres whereas total land covers area of 18 acres. ld. counsel for assessee Mr. D.K. Gupta on other hand, submitted that as per revenue authorities, average valuation, amount comes to Rs. 5,940 per acre against which assessee has returned value of Rs. 8,000 per acre, which stands accepted by CWT(A) though WTO had taken same @ Rs. 22,000 per acre. He vehemently argued that yield method could not be basis in case of agricultural land. He submitted that only 10.97 acres is cultivable out of total area of 13.66 acres, balance 2.69 acre being 'banjar'. He also submitted that even as per sale instance which had been made basis by Revenue, valuation of Rs. 1,10,000 shown by assessee in basis by Revenue, valuation of Rs. 1,10,000 shown by assessee in revised return is on higher side because same is based @ Rs. 8,000 per acre. He drew our attention to page 11 of assessee's paper book in which WTO had asked assessee about fair market value of agricultural land indicting area used and type of agricultural land and also took us through assessee's compilation that regarding land at village Garhi Sikanderpur, five yearly average is enclosed which gives sales of 1979 and 1980 also. He also took us through his written submissions filed before CWT(A) available at pages 63 onwards, on which he relied and submitted that average rate as per WTO comes to Rs. 22,600 against that of Rs. 5,940 per acre given by patwari or revenue Department. Regarding total area of land, he agreed as pointed out by him before CWT(A) that total area was with villagers being 'banjar' land in adverse possession and was of no value. Then, he submitted, against Rs. 5,940 they have taken valuation @ Rs. 8,000 per acre. Therefore, CWT(A) was justified in sustaining very same valuation as assigned by assessee in revised return. He further pointed out to his submission made before CWT(A) that it is incorrect to say that land is on outskirts of Panipat but it is 4 Kms. approximately from Panipat. He reiterated very some submissions which he made over and again before CWT(A) and supported his order. After taking into consideration rival submissions and appreciating contention raised by both parties through their ld. co: sels and also carefully going through papers pertaining to this ground in their compilations, we are unable to interfere in finding of CWT(A) so far of land is concerned. Undoubtedly, average rate worked out by Revenue authorities, i.e. Patwari comes to Rs. 5,940 per acre. Even if peruse classified chart available at page 14 of revenue's compilation which covers 'chahi', 'barani', 'nehri', 'gairmumkin' etc. against which assessee himself offered valuation @ Rs. 8,000 per acre, there is no dispute about fact that assessee actually owned 18 acres of land, though it was contended by learned counsel for assessee that balance land was with villagers and it was banjar. We do appreciate both facts that balance land was 'banjar' and was in adverse possession and there will be lot of litigation in getting it back but even then assessee has some right in balance land of five acres or so as well. Taking into consideration entirety of situation and hazards of litigation, also and on basis of fact that assessee had not forgone his rights whatever they are worth in said land, same valuation has got to be assigned. We, therefore, assign valuation in respect of 'banjar' land in balance area of about five acres in sum of Rs. 4,000 i.e. taking value @ Rs. 1,000 approximately per acre for balance 'banjar' land which is not in possession of assessee. In respect of contention of Revenue that yield method should have been basis as taken by WTO, we are afraid, we are not in agreement with it because Supreme Court decisions which is cited by ld. Sr. D.R. copy of which is placed on its compilation says: " That method of capitalising actual or immediately prospective profits or rent of number of years purchase should be resorted only when other evidence for computation of market value is not available". In that very judgment their Lordships further observed: " That said method should be adopted only in case other methods are not available". In instant case, comparable cases even are available. We have sustained addition of Rs. 40,000 in respect of 'banjar' land which is in possession of villagers because when assessee had shown value in revised return in sum of Rs. 1,10,000. it was shown in respect of area of 13.66 acres only. It is too late in day for assessee to say that since average rate of agricultural land as per revenue's record on basis of comparable cases in respect of all types of land comes to Rs. 5,940 and because assessee had shown rate of Rs. 8,000 per acre, it cannot be ignored that assessee has shown higher rate for reasons best known to it which may be situation or some other element such as that of yield in this particular case etc. Since fact remains that total area shown is 13.66 acres again 18 acres, we are in agreement with learned counsel for assessee that while showing rate of Rs. 8,000 per acre, assessee has taken into consideration cultivable and non-cultivable-both lands-but has not taken into consideration 'banjar' land which is not in his possession. Inspite of adverse possession hazards of litigation, as observed above, balance land of about four acres may be of having value only peanuts but it cannot be said that it did not have any value at all. With this aspect of matter in mind, we have sustained addition of paltry sum Rs. 4,000 and assigned valuation of agricultural land in hands of assessee at Rs. 1,14,000 instead of Rs. 1,10,000. We have already observed above that Supreme Court decision cited by ld. Sr. D.R. instead goes against Revenue rather than against assessee because it will be wrong alternative method as agriculture in our country depends on many factors such as rain-fall, seeds and good climate and general maintenance etc. If yield method is adopted, land may be of no value when it does not give any yield year. Then their Lordships have themselves observed that is method which should be adopted when no other method is available, such as comparable cases or average sales, as available in this case. second ground is in respect of inclusion of value of Mehrauli land which assessee got in gift as individual from Sh. Hardayal Singh son of Sh. Kartar Singh of Delhi. As matter of fact, on 8th Sept., 1978 assessee and his brother Shri B.D. Shingla got each patch of agricultural land measuring 9 bighas 5 biswas as per duly executed deed of gift. Since for 1979-80 assessment year, value of said land was shown in hands of HUF Revenue attempted to make capital out of it and wanted to assessee same in hands of assessee-HUF for this year as well. There were only two contentions with WTO first that earlier assessment was made in hands of assessee-HUF and second that done, as given in said gift deed, shall also mean and include his heirs, representatives, assignees, administrators etc. WTO, therefore, included value of said land in sum of Rs. 80,000, in hands of assessee. When matter came before CIT(A), he dealt with same in paras 10 to 13 of his order and accepted contention of assessee that said land was received by him as individual and even alternatively if it is accepted, for sake of argument, that in immediately preceding year it was shown in hands of HUF and put in common hotch-potch, on strength of s. 4(1A) he ordered deletion of said addition. ld. Sr. D.R. in respect of this issue also went thoroughly thorough gift-deed and highlighted over and again that since expressions 'donor' and 'donee' were to mean and include their heirs, representatives, assignees, administrators, etc., it was gift to HUF and more so since it was reflected in books of HUF. Besides, he relied on order of WTO. learned counsel for assessee, on order hand, besides relying on order of CIT (A), submitted that first donee was individual Shri O.P. Shingla and not HUF and secondly even if, for sake of argument, it is taken to be so in light of s. 4(1A), as rightly relied upon by CIT(A), same could not be included in hands of assessee HUF. After taking into consideration rival submissions and going into relevant papers in assessee's compilation in this respect, which are placed in form of chart including gift-deed covering explanation and submissions of assessee before two lower authorities, we are unable to interfere in finding of CWT(A). Here mentions that expressions 'donor' and 'donee' shall mean and include their heirs, representatives, assigns, administrators, etc. does not make it to gift in hands of HUF because, if that was to be intention of donor, it should have included members of family or descendants etc. because type of clause on which Revenue wanted to place its case is very common in drafting and heirs, representatives, assignees, administrators etc. cannot suggest that gift was in favour of HUF. Then even on alternative argument, as per. s. 4(1A) (b), it is clear that converted property or part thereof shall be deemed to be family, even in cases individual property is placed in common hotch-potch of HUF. As matter of fact, when we go through orders of two lower authorities, we don't find any dispute about fact that originally said property was received by assessee in individual status. In right of above discussion and for reasons given by CWT(A) in his order on this issue, we hereby confirm his action. In respect of group No. 3 which pertains to valuation of immovable properties comprising of factories and residential houses, ld. departmental valuation Officer Mr. H. N. Sachdeva, who was present in Court, raised preliminary objection that he was not granted chance of being heard by CWT(A). After good deal of discussion from both parties when records were looked into, it was found that valuation cell was intimated about hearing and not DVO as such and so much so Valuation Officer was present in hearing before CWT(A). preliminary objection of DVO cannot be accepted as valuation cell was intimated and valuation officer was present, as above said. While meeting preliminary objection, ld. counsel for assessee had drawn our attention to s. 2(r) as per which what 'Valuation Officer' means. He also pointed out technical objection that in case valuation of properties shown are taken into consideration, it may not fall in jurisdiction of DVO at all. We fell that second technical objection raised by ld. counsel for assessee would remain of academic interest when we actually go to s. 2(r), which reads as under: "2(r) 'Valuation Officer' means person appointed as Valuation Officer under s. 12A, and includes Regional Valuation Officer, District Valuation Officer, and as Assistant Valuation Officer". Looking to above definition, we hold that notice sent by CWT(A), to Valuation Officer was sufficient opportunity granted to Valuation cell for representing case and in instant case so much so Valuation Officer Sh. Ram Singh was also present in course of hearing before CWT(A). third ground raised by Revenue in appeal, in respect of which above preliminary objection was raised by DVO is rejected by us. ground reads as under: "The CWT(A) was not justified in law and on facts in ignoring valuation of immovable properties comprising of factories and residential houses as made by departmental valuation cell". This ground of appeal on face of it may not be termed as misconceived but is is not very clear and can safely be termed as ambiguous and not happily worded. There are many properties comprising of residential houses and factory building which are tenanted and which are utilised by assessee. There is n o specified dispute projected from above said ground. ld. Sr. D.R. agreed that said ground is not that unambiguous, lucid, and clear. He would still clarify different properties in course of arguments. First of all, in respect of house property which is known as 'Single House' ld. Sr. D.R. submitted that said property is situated within factory premises and he agreed that valuation made by valuation Officer was on land and building method in case of Sh. O.P. Shingla and in respect of this valuation, he left floor for DVO to argue in favour of his valuation and in respect of this valuation, he left floor for DVO to argue in favour of his valuation and in respect of same. ld. DVO argued at length and attempted to justify his valuation and he said that land and building method adopted by him is most suitable method for valuing said property. ld. Sr. D.R. while supporting DVO opposing application of r. 1BB, on strength of which CWT(A) granted relief to assessee, submitted that though building in question is residential undoubtedly it cannot be treated as such because it is in factory premises and it is of no use to any body also except assessee or their allied concerns because any one else would need helicopter to reach that building. ld. counsel for assessee, on other hand, mainly relied on order of CWT(A) and submitted that as per r. 1BB, even value of property in question comes much lesser, against which valuation report by assessee was in sum of Rs. 1,41,595, which was accepted by CWT(A) against valuation of Rs. 1,91,600 assigned by WTO on strength of valuation report, which was vehemently supported by DVO and ld. D.R. He had also pointed out our attention to well-known Special Bench decision of Tribunal in case of Biju Patnaik vs. WTO (1983) 12 TTJ (Del) 25: (1981) 23 CTR (Trib) Del 1: (1983) 3 ITD 694 (Del) (A). After taking into consideration rival submissions and finding it as fact that property in question was residential and maintainable rent was Rs. 3,117 as per which value was worked out by CWT(A) in sum of Rs. 38,962. which was increased by 30 per cent as provided in r. 1BB (3)(ii) as per which it come to be determined at Rs. 50,650, against which assessee had shown it at Rs. 1,41, 595. CWT(A) observed that value shown by assessee was even higher than what could be worked out under r. 1BB and, therefore, he elected not to interferes. In course of arguments, ld. counsel for assessee had also pointed out under s. 7(4) valuation of house was to be frozen as on valuation date next following date on which assessee became owner of house. We are unable to support valuation given by DVO on which reliance was placed by WTO and ld. Sr. D.R. because as per special Bench decision in case of Biju Patnaik (supra) Valuation Officer could not ignore r. 1B and, more strictly speaking, as per said decision, even reference to valuation cell was unwarranted. In said decision, it has been held that r. 1BB is mandatory, it has also spoken about jurisdiction of WTO for making reference and binding nature of r. 1BB for Valuation Officer and it is further observed therein that said r. 1BB has been made for giving benefit, and, therefore, it could not be denied. On strength of said decision, we are unable to agree that submissions of ld. Sr. D.R. that actually building is like palace and commands high market value and no body can use same unless he owns helicopter. All aspects which are projected by ld. counsel for assessee and which go to support order of CWT(A), would be clear from following findings of above said Special Bench decision: "3. jurisdiction of WTO to make reference to Valuation Officer is not arbitrary one but is based on opinion that value as returned by assessee. On basis of estimate made by registered valuer is less than its fair market value under s. 16A(1)(a). In arriving at that opinion, WTO is not entitled to ignore r. 1BB from consideration. This is so because for purposes of s. 7(1), that rule lays down how f.m.v. of residential properties is to be arrived at. Only if he considers that valuation arrived at by registered valuer is less f.m.v. by applying 1BB, would WTO be entitled to refer question of valuation to V.O. WTO, who had no opportunity to consider r. 1BB when he made reference u/s 16A because said rule did not then exists, must now reconsider question whether reference u/s 16 could be validly made keeping in view r. 1BB and only if he comes to such conclusion, would be found by report of VO. Committee which had been formed by CBDT for laying down proper guide-lines in shape of rules had recommended that r. 1BB would not be binding on V.O. only in exceptional cases which had been laid down in r. be binding on V.O. only in exceptional cases which had been laid down in r. 1BB(5). Obviously, if rules are binding on WTO, but not on V.O. it would result in increased litigation thereby defeating very purpose of r. 1BB. Therefore, r. 1BB, being place delegated legislation, which is mandatory in nature, binds not only WTO's but also V.Os. who are part of machinery under WT Act. Therefore, V.O. cannot ignore r. 1BB for valuing residential properties falling under r. 1BB. There is positive concession given in respect of valuation of residential property, including self occupied property, by r. 1BB and if by taking advantage of that concession assessee is entitled to value his self-occupied property at lesser figure than that arrived at by registered valuer, he cannot be denied that benefit. There is no merit in contention that assessee having returned higher valuation, can not take advantage of r. 1BB to claim reduction in valuation. "6. To hold that person who owns residential house, even though let out, would get benefit of r. 1BB but one who is occupying that house himself would not get benefit, would neither be correct inter-pretation, nor harmonious construction of sections and rules. benefit should be more readily available to self occupied property than to let out property, though both are residential. Accordingly, even after 1st April, 1976, when s. 7(4) came on statute book, assessee has option either to value self occupied property by application of s. 7(4) or by application of r. 1BB, whichever is more beneficial to him". Looking to above said decision, even assessee could be granted relief of difference which is there between value returned by him and value determined as per r. 1BB but, it seems, assessee did not press same before CWT(A) nor he was out to contest said excess before CWT(A) actually considered applicability of r. 1BB in case of this residential house known as 'Singla House' and on basis of net maintenance rent of Rs. 3,117, value was worked out at Rs. 31,962, which when increased by 30 per cent as provided in r. 1BB(3)(ii), came to be determined at Rs. 50,600 only, against which value shown by assessee was Rs. 1,49,595 and CWT(A) actually finding that value returned by assessee was much more than value determinable as per r. 1BB, granted relief of Rs. 50,000 from valuation of Rs. 1,91,600 assigned by DVO. second contention of ld. counsel for assessee that under s. 7(4) value of house was to be frozen as on valuation date next following date on which assessee became owner of house, in instant case since property had been constructed in year 1980-81 which means assessee became owner of property in this year, same value had to be taken as fair market value for purpose of Wealth-tax assessment. In light of above discussion and for reasons given by CWT(A) in this order on this issue, his action is hereby confirmed. Before we part with issue, we may observe that day in and day out matters pertaining to valuation of residential properties are disposed of sitting in every towners because r. 1BB is mandatory, it stipulates binding nature on Revenue and V.O. and in instant case, had assessee been more serious in pressing its claim only on basis of r. 1BB, even valuation shown by him in sum of Rs. 1,41,595 could get further reduction because it has also been held by Special Bench that assessee has option either to value self-occupied property by application of s. 7(4) or by application or r. 1BB, whichever is more beneficial to him any way to out short, all this becomes academic ones, assessee had shown valuation of Rs. 1,41,595, against which value determinable under r. 1BB comes much lesser, as above said. order of CWT(A) in this respect of is thus confirmed. Coming to second property which is known as 'factory building' ld. Sr. DR mainly relied order of WTO valuation report and attempt to project device or collusion of assessee in undertaking value of those properties, as his attempt and attempt of ld. DVO was that though property in question was rented out land and building method should have been adopted as tenants were either relations of assessee or allied concerns. In that connection, he pointed out facts in brief while attaching order of CWT(A) vehemently that there were two blocks of building one is owned by firm styled as Steel Krafts and other is owned by Indian Conduit Industries. Both these firms have partly let out premises to sister concerns. Steel Krafts has rented out portion of his shed, godown and concerns. Steel Krafts has rented out portion of his shed, godown and factory known as Metal Tubes Pvt. Ltd. and another firm Steel Krafts Lencing Tubes on annual rent of Rs. 3,600 each. But he was unable to controvert fact that said tenancies were since 1962. His main theme of argument was that since tenants were allied concerns, land capitalisation method should not be basis of valuation as type of tenants in instant case are such which can be thrown out anytime. ld. DVO also projected with assistance of valuation report that value of building in question is enormous and land building method is manly suitable method. His main theme of argument was that since tenants were allied concerns, land capitalisation method should not be basis of valuation as type of tenants in instant case are such which can be thrown out any time. ld. DVO also projected with assistance of valuation report that value of building in question is enormous and land building method is only suitable method. His main theme was that tenancies were collusive as lessees were none other than sister-concerns of assessee firm. It cuts short dispute because properties in question, valuation of which is under dispute, is tenanted. ld. counsel for assessee, besides relying on order of CWT(A), submitted that it is for ages that properties in question are on rent. He submitted that assessment year involved is 1980-81whereas properties in question are rented since 1962. He pointed out to several pages and relevant paragraphs available on voluminous paper book of assessee as he has also done while arguing earlier ground. He pointed out to several passages and relevant paragraphs available on voluminous paper book of assessee as he has also done while arguing earlier ground. He pointed out that in Income-tax assessment its said rents which have been subjected to tax in hands of landlords and it is said rents which have been subjected to allowance in hands of tenants may be allied concerns. question of collusion or device is imagination of revenue's mind. ld. counsel for assessee relied on cases of CIT vs. Inderjit Singh (1984) 43 CTR (P&H) 221: (1985) 153 ITR 372 (P&H) and CIT vs. Shri Radhey Mohan (1984) 43 CTR (P&H) 236:153 ITR 399 (P&H) and further submitted that in light of AIR 1968 SO 1201, rent capitalisation method was proper method. In rejoinder, in respects of these properties also, attempt of ld. DVO and ld. Sr. DR was that actually values are much rather but ld. Sr. DR was unable to controvert fact that tenancies are since 1962 and it is said amount of rents which have been claimed as deductions as tenants and subjected to tax in hands of landlord. On basis of facts available on record and after taking into consideration rival submissions and after going through well-reasoned order of CWT(A), we are unable to interfere in his findings. Once there is no controversy about fact that properties in questions are tenanted and he tenancy has not been created during year under consideration or year or two earlier but are coming in right from 1962 and assessee owners have been subjected to tax in respect of said rents and in hands of tenants, some of which are firms or even companies, same have been allowed, it will be just imagination or surmise of Revenue that it was because of collusion. Simply because landlords and tenants are relations or connected by blood, should not go against assessee because though blood is thicker than water, money, more often than not, has been he dearest ones standing in Courts against each others, brother against brother, son against father, wife against husband, what to talk of collaterals. We do not find it necessary to go into valuation adopted by VO, supported by WTO and ld. Sr. DR before us because properties in question are tenanted and rent capitalisation method having been adopted, which has been confirmed by CWT(A), no interference s in his finding is called for. amounts of rents receivable by assessee-landlord could look smaller at present but if we go back to 1962 when said properties were rented out, we will only be constrained to observe that taking into consideration rupee value of present day and that of 1962, said rent could not be called lessor, manipulated off collusive. Coming to legal aspect of matter that rent capitalisation method is right method, we have Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Inderjit Singh (supra) in which their Lordships have held as under: "We have duly considered argument of ld. counsel. However, we agree with submission of Mr. Sharma. It is well-settled that rental method for evaluating properties which are on rent at time of sale is well recognised method for determining f.m.v. of such buildings. method has been given recognition by Legislature even under WT Rules. According t o r. 1BB of said rules, valuation of residential building's can be determined by multiplying net maintainable rent by 100/8. method is also approved by judicial precedents". There is another case of Shri Radhey Mohan (supra) their Lordships have occasion to deal with applicability of rent capitalisation method and they observed that not only rented properties but even part of properties which are not on rent and are under self-use should be determined on that basis, which will be clear from following finding given at page 402 of report (1985) 153 ITR 399 (P&H): ".......It is well-settled that fair market price of property can be determined either by land and building method or by rent capitalisation method. In case part of building is on rent, it cannot be held that determination of valuation of building by rent capitalisation method is not correct. Even that method has been recognised by legislature under WT rules. It has been provided in r. 1BB of said rules that value of house which is used for residential purposes can be determined by multiplying net maintainable rent by fraction 100/8. ITO method is also recognised by judicial decisions. Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs. Hassan Koya AIR 1968 SC 1201 observed: "When property sold is land with building, it is often difficult to secure reliable evidence of instances of sale of similar lands with building proximate in time to date of notification under s. 4. Therefore, method which is generally restored to in determining value of land and building, specially those used for business purposes, is method of capitalisation of return actually received from land and building". facts in background and submissions of both parties in respect o f properties let out by Indian Conduit Inds. and another sister-concern Steel Krafts and Samarat Woollen Mills, are also similar. It was pointed out in course of arguments that portions to M/s Steel Krafts were stated to have been let out as early as in 1954 whereas to Samrat Woollen Mills it was some time in 1964. For very same reasons, therefore, given above in respect of other tenanted properties, valuation of these properties too on rent capitalisation method was held in return and CWT(A) was nowhere in error in adopting same instead of rents and building method adopted by valuation cell and Revenue. In light of above discussion and for reasons given by CWT(A) in this order, his action is hereby confirmed. Now what survives for our consideration is valuation of part of properties which are under self-use by firm, in which assessee is partner. ld. DVO and ld. Sr. D.R. in respect of these properties attempted to distinguish rented out portions and portions which are under self use of assessee and firms. They submitted that at least in respect of self-occupied properties, mode of land and building method should be adopted. ld. counsel for assessee on other hand, pointed out that we sitting in Chandigarh cannot ignore Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in case of Shri Radhey Mohan (supra). He submitted that undoubtedly properties are under self-use but same are not only in close vicinity but part of such properties which are rented out. fact that part of building is occupied by landlord should not make any difference as rent of that part can be determined on basis of rent paid by tenants under same building or other building situated in same vicinity. ld. DVO and ld. D.R. relied on order of WTO and valuation report. When we go through orders of two lower authorities and submissions made by both-the parties, we find that objection raised by learned counsel for assessee before us to determine value of self occupied portions also on basis of tenancy, is uncalled for. CIT(A) at length has dealt with properties which are under self-occupation of assessee or firm in which he was partner and it was never case of assessee before him nor assessee is in appeal before us against finding of CWT(A). However, his main attempt has been that valuation assigned by assessee is even higher than one which would be determined in case self-occupied properties are also treated as tenanted on same rates. In respect of said properties, main dispute protected was about land, for which rate was produced from Rs. 10 to Rs. 8 per sq. yd. by CWT(A). which rate was produced from Rs. 10 to Rs. 8 per sq. yd. by CWT(A). finding of CWT(A) in respect of this issue is available n paras 27 to 31 of his order which for sake of ready reference are reproduced below: "27. Regarding valuation of self-occupied portion of properties mentioned above belonging to Indian Conduit Ind. and Steel Krafs, application of land and building methods appropriate. However, regarding determination of fair market value of land, determination of cost of construction of building and quantum of depreciation to be allowed against cost of construction worked out in view that appellant has filed details of comparable cases. Considering facts and circumstances of case, it would be fair and reasonable to adopt rate of land at Rs. 8 per sq. yd. WTO is directed to value self-occupied portion of land belonging to above mentioned two firms @ Rs. 8 per sq. yd. Regarding determination of present cost of construction of said self-occupied portion of above mentioned properties, it appears, V.O. has made certain inconsistencies in valuation report regarding low cost of material. In my opinion it would be fair and reasonable to hold that cost of construction of shed and stores under self-occupation of M/s Indian Conduit Inds. excepting one open shed, which appears to have been correctly valued @ Rs. 193 per sq. mt. be determined by applying rate of Rs. 331 per. sq. mt. as against different rate ranging from Rs. 263 to Rs. 412 per sq. mt. adopted by V.O. "Similarly as regards various sheds under occupation of M/s Steel Krafts, it is again seen that VO has adopted different rates for structure which r e apparently identical in nature. Without indicating any basis for such difference. Here again, for similar reasons as given above, I consider it fair and reasonable that cost of construction of various sheds shown at Sr. Nos. 4,5,6 and 10 of abstract of cost of structure housing M/s Steel Krafts, be determined by adopting average rate of Rs. 350 per sq. mt. against different rates ranging upto 396 per sq. mt. adopted by V.O. Regarding cost of index adopted, appellant has not been able to point out any mistake in percentage taken by V.O. No interference is called for. Regarding quantum of depreciation to be allowed in respect of factory and office building, in self-occupation of so firms. It find that V.O. has correctly adopted rate of 18 per cent per annum in respect of structures of better quality of construction, namely, building office accommodation, etc. Regarding factory building, it appears rate of 2 per cent p.a. worked out by V.O. is on lower side especially when two firms are being allowed depreciation @ 10 per cent p.a. in their income-tax assessments on w.d.v. method. Looking into facts and circumstances of case, I consider it fair and reasonable to hold that quantum of allowable depreciation be worked out by applying rate of 3 per cent p.a. in respect of all structures other than office building. WTO is directed to revalue above mentioned land building by making such adjustments in depreciation rates alongwith above mentioned adjustments in determination of cost of construction". Going through valuation report, on one hand and above finding, on other hand we are unable to interfere in findings of CWT(A). only place where there could be some interference was valuation of land which is said to have been shown at same rate even in immediately preceding year as adopted by CWT(A) but even in this respect we find from paper book that sale instances of similar plots are available @ Rs. 8 per sq. yd. Under circumstances, for CWT(A) in his order on this issue, his action is hereby confirmed. contention of learned counsel for assessee that decisions to CIT vs. Inderjit Singh (1984) 43 CTR (P&H) 221: (1985) 153 ITR 372 and CIT vs. Shri Radhey Mohan (1984) 43 CTR (P&H) 236: (1985) 153 ITR 399 (P&H) 43 CTR (P&H) 236: (1985) 153 ITR 399 (P&H) can go to limited extent of supporting order of CWT(A), his action having been confined, Revenue also fails in this ground. fourth ground in revenue's appeal reads as under: 'The CWT(A) was further not justified in deleting addition of Rs. 61,440 by holding that it belongs to larger HUF M/s Phool Chand Chhaju Ram". As in respect of earlier ground, ld. Sr. DR in respect of this ground as well, before addressing us attempted to clarify situation and read out at length orders of two lower authorities, because reading of ground alone would have caused more confusion than clarity. He submitted that there w s bigger HUF styled as M/s Phool Chand Chhaju Ram which was constituted of O.P. Shingla, B.D. Shingla, other brothers and their mother. There was partial partition some time in 1957 and assessee's contention was that he with B.D. Shingla and their mother continued to be smaller HUF. contention of WTO was after death of their mother in 1964, O.P. Shingla assessee and his brother B.D. Shingla were two different H.U.Fs. and one single member could not be Karta of two HUFs. which was alleged to be so in this case by assessee, as their contention was that B.D. Shingla was Karta of HUF comprising of all members belonging to his family and family of his brother O.P. Shingla. There were certain properties jointly held by two HUFs which was considered to be case of co-ownership of two HUFs by WTO and he included share of Rs. 61,440 in respect of properties owned by bigger HUF of M/s Phool Chand Chhajju Ram. ld. Sr. DR submitted, there was subsequent partition deed and copy of decree which indicated that not only other brothers but O.P. Shingla and B.D. Shingla also got separated and it was found in course of search and therefore, question of retaining bigger/larger HUF could not survive. learned counsel for assessee on other hand, submitted that order of CWT(A) is more than clear on issue that O.P. Shingla and B.D. Shingla held their independent separate HUF also held HUF of two families which was styled M/s Phool Chand Chhajju Ram, more so in light of amendment in Act that unless there was partition so recognised by Department, they were to be assessed jointly. After taking into consideration rival submissions and going through facts were was HUF of assessee with his brothers and their mother, which got partitioned partly in 1957; whereas to brothers had gone out and O.P. Shingla assessee and B.D. Shingla continued to be joint till 1964. On death of their mother in 1964, both O.P. Shingla and B.D. Shingla according to them, remained joint but they could not deny partition decree found in them, remained joint but they could not deny partition decree found in course of search which admitted separation of all brothers. We intentionally avoid repeating facts as these are more then detailed in order of CWT(A). However, there is no dispute about fact that there was partial partition as on 2nd April, 1957 which stands notified and recognised by ITO/WTO in 1954-55 asst. yr. Subsequently in 1974, there was family settlement on basis of which declaratory suit as to title of all brothers in respect of various properties was filed. contention of assessee was that this suit was filed with limited purpose. There is also no dispute about fact that till 1974-75, said HUF continued to be assessed. It is also fact that memorandum dt. 11th July, 1974 evidencing total partition in family was found in course of search but this is also on un- controvered fact that said HUF of Shri O.P. Shingla and B.D. Shingla was assessed to income-tax till 1974-75. aspect of matter that one man cannot be Karta of two HUFs does not find favour with us. death of mother of O.P. Shingla and B.D. Shingla also could not make any difference to claim of assessee and fact that there was neither by claim of partition on behalf on O.P. Shingla and B.D. Shingla before IT authorities under s. 171 nor any partition was granted. Under circumstances, even if, partition which is projected by Revenue to have been taken place in 1974 could not be fatal to assessee's claim in respect of properties income held jointly earlier by O.P. Shingla and B.D. Shingla, who were assessed as independent HUFs. Since order under s. 171 after any partition of HUF which is hitherto being assessed is mandatory, old bigger HUF would continue to be assessed in respect of properties jointly held by it earlier. In light of above discussion and for reasons in respect of properties jointly held by it earlier. In light of above discussion and for reasons given by CWT(A) in his order on this issue, his action is hereby confirmed. Revenue fails on this ground also. In result, appeal is partly allowed. *** INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX (ASST.) v. O.P. SHINGLA (HUF)