JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.
1. Pursuant to the direction given by this court in O.P. No. 2133 of 1992 dated November 3, 1994, the following question has been referred to this court under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (in short “the Act”), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short “the Tribunal”) :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the valuation adopted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Is the valuation so adopted valid or in accordance with law ?”
2. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows : The assessee is an individual owning immovable properties of extensive area. For the assessment year 1982-83, corresponding to the accounting year ending on September 30, 1981, he filed a return of wealth declaring taxable wealth at Rs. 5,51,000. The Wealth-tax Officer referred the matter to the Valuation Officers, Madurai, Calicut and Thiruvananthapuram for making valuation of various properties under Section 16A of the Act. After receipt of the valuation report only from the Valuation Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, he adopted the values determined by the said authority in respect of the properties mentioned at items Nos. 1 to 6 in the assessment order. Regarding valuation of the property at item No. 7, he accepted the valuation made by the Valuation Officer, Coimbatore. The properties at items Nos. 8 to 13 were valued on the basis of the assessee’s own admission in the return of wealth filed. Thus the gross value of the immovable properties was fixed at Rs. 59,11,800 including the market value of the residence which was fixed at Rs. 2,40,500. The taxable wealth was finally determined at Rs. 58,19,000.
3. In appeal, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram (in short “the CWT(A)”), observed that the valuation report of the Valuation Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, which related to the position as on September 30, 1982, was not relevant for valuing the properties as on September 30, 1981. Since, the very same properties had been valued by the Valuation Officer for the assessment year 1978-79 before noticing depreciation at Rs. 20,21,000, he fixed the value of the properties at items Nos. 1 to 6 at Rs. 18,05,640, following his own order in the assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year.
4. The Revenue preferred second appeal before the Tribunal which confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) holding that all the six items of properties had been valued by the Valuation Officer as on September 30, 1982, which fell beyond the accounting period relevant for the assessment year under appeal and that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) was justified in adopting the value fixed for the assessment year 1978-79 after allowing depreciation at the appropriate rate.
5. On being moved, initially the Tribunal had refused to refer any question. But subsequently, as noted above, on the basis of this court’s order, reference has been made.
6. In support of the application, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the valuation report for the immediately succeeding year would have provided a more rational basis for fixing the valuation and, therefore, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal were not justified in adopting the valuation basing on figures for the previous period.
7. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, supported the order submitting that the method adopted cannot be said to be irrational, and the conclusions being factual, no question of law arises.
8. Valuation of an asset cannot be an exact science. Mathematical calculation and precision is impracticable. The money value attributable to the asset is to be decided and estimated by the concerned statutory authority in a reasonable and judicious manner on the basis of the facts and circumstances available. An objective valuation has to be made and the same has to be based on some material. No wooden or mechanical rule of universal application can be there to determine the value of an asset or property, whatever be the nature of the statute under which the valuation has to be fixed. In Gold Coast Selection Trust Ltd. v. Humphrey [1949] 17 ITR (Suppl.) 19 (HL), the position was illuminatingly stated as follows :
“Valuation is an art, not an exact science. Mathematical certainty is not demanded, nor indeed is it possible. It is for the concerned authority to express in money value attributed by him to the asset his estimate and this is a conclusion of fact to be drawn from the evidence before him. If an asset is difficult to value but is none the less of a money value, the best valuation possible must be made.” (underlined for emphasis)
9. We find that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal preferred to make a valuation on the basis of the valuation report relatable to the assessment year 1978-79. While making the valuation, appropriate additions/depreciations have been taken note of. Since, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have adopted a method which cannot be said to be unreasonable or irrational, in our view, no question of law arises. The question about the valuation of a particular property is a question of fact. The determination of the question of valuation, as in the case at hand depends upon appreciation of materials or evidence, resulting” in ascertainment of basic facts without application of any principle of law. The issue raises a question of fact and the conclusion is one of fact. Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that a different method could have been adopted, that does not in any manner affect the acceptability of the method adopted by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) or the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the position shall be different when the question is the method of valuation vis-a-vis manner of valuation. According to him, the manner of valuation involves a question of law. Attractive though the submission is, it is without substance. Both are conceptually similar. “Method” means a procedure or process for achieving an end ; an orderly arrangement ; manner of performance. “Manner” means a characteristic way of acting or proceeding, the way in which anything is done. The inevitable conclusion” is that the Tribunal recorded a finding of fact.
10. The answer to the question referred is, therefore, in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
11. Tax reference is disposed of accordingly.