This is departmental appeal and following grounds have been taken by Department: "(1) For that impugned order of assessment has been arbitrary and wrong. (2) For that value of immovable property at 29/IB & 30, Armenian Street, Calcutta at Rs. 4,48,925 has been illegal and wrong. (3) For that learned WTO should not have failed to take into consideration while valuing immovable property at 29/IB and 30, Armenian Street, Calcutta, value of life interest of Smt. Ruby Mitter daughter-in- law of settlor in terms with Deed of Settlement. For that value of trust property is liable to be reduced by value of life interest under Deed of Settlement. (4) For that it is settled principle of law that in case of trusts where life interest are created and reversionary interests are also provided, valuation is to be done on actuarial basis and that being so, impugned valuation of property not having been done on said basis it has become illegal and wrong. (5) For that appellant will take other grounds at or before hearing to show that assessment has been illegal and wrong". assessee is individual. assessee was owning immovable property at 29/IB & 30, Armenian Street, Calcutta. Smt. Ruby Mitter, daugher-in-law of settlor in terms of Settlement Deed dt. 27th May, 1963 was having life interest in property. WTO took gross rent of property at Rs. 48,000 and after deducting outgoings (not for life interest of Smt. Ruby Mitter) took net maintainable rent at Rs. 35,914 which was capitalised by him by taking multiplier at 12.5. He took value under said circumstances at Rs. 4,48,925 and allowed exemption of Rs. 1 lakh under s. 5(1)(iv). net figure from property at Rs. 3,48,925 was included in net wealth of assessee. assessee, in appeal, contended that capitalised value taken by WTO was not correct because WTO did not take interest of Smt. Ruby Mitter in property. AAC deducted 1/3rd of gross rent as interest for Smt. Ruby Mitter and capitalised same at 12.5 times and after allowing exemption of Rs. 1 lakh took value at Rs. 1,98,925. Shri Dasgupta, Departmental Representative, referred to s. 1BB and urged that deduction allowed for life interest of Smt. Ruby Mitter is not in accordance with said rule and, therefore, order of, WTO on this issue should be maintained. assesses counsel on other hand by filing paper book containing 17 pages supported order of AAC. paper book of assessee included order of AAC for asst. yr. 1978-79, order of WTO for asst. yr. 1978-79, order of ITO for asst. yr. 1978-79, copy of Deed of Settlement, order of WTO for asst. yr. 1977-78 in case of Smt. Ruby Mitter and order of ITO for asst. yr. 1981-82 in case of Smt. Ruby Mitter. counsel stated that even ITO allowed deduction for asst. yr. 1978-79 whereas interest of Smt. Ruby Mitter has been subjected to tax and for that purpose he referred to assessment orders of Smt. Ruby Mitter for asst. yr. 1977-78 and 1981-82. market value determined by AAC is correct. It is fact that Smt. Ruby Mitter was having life interest in said property. property was fetching gross rent of Rs. 48,000. Interest of Smt. Ruby Mitter was charge on property. Under said circumstance, maintainable rent cannot be taken leaving aside interest of Smt. Ruby Mitter. Smt. Ruby Mitter was having 1/3rd interest in net rent. Therefore, maintainable rent should be calculated after excluding outgoings including interest of Smt. Ruby Mitter. AAC had calculated maintainable rent on said principle. capitalised value taken in said circumstances by AAC is correct and is maintained. In result, appeal is dismissed. *** WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. AJOY KUMAR MITTER