In this Wealth Tax Reference under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act the following question has been referred by the Tribunal: "Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the capitalising factor at 10 times as directed by the AAC without considering that the method of valuation made in the assessment was different from mat of the preceding year ?" 2. The facts of the case for the purpose of giving opinion on the question referred to may be stated as follows : That the assessee has a four storeyed RCC building at JC Das Road, Panbazar, Guwahati. The said building was and has been used for commercial purpose. The Wealth Tax Officer mentioned that the value of the building as per Valuer's Report dated 13.7.77 was Rs.4,98,000/-. The Wealth Tax Officer, however, felt that the valuation assessed by the valuer was much in lower side inasmuch as the value of the land and the building by afflux of time appreciated to a great extent. The annual rent of the building was Rs. 1,20,000/-. The Wealth Tax Officer in order to determine the market value of the building applied the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. As per the said valuation the total value of the property was found to be Rs.15,09,462/- and after allowing exemption under section 5(1) (iv) of the said Act the net value of the property came to Rs.l4,09,462/- which was included in the wealth of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Guwahati Range, Guwahati who directed to determine the value of the property by multiplying the annual rent by 10 times following the procedure adopted in the previous year. The Revenue being aggrieved took up the matter before the Appellate Tribunal contending that the AAC was not justified in directing that the value should be ten times of the rent. The Tribunal after hearing the parties conf irraed the order passed by the AAC, The Revenue requested the Tribunal to refer the following two questions : "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the capitalising factor should be 10 times of the net rent as directed by the learned AAC ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the capitalising factor should be 10 times of the net rent as directed by the learned AAC ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding the point at issue without taking into consideration that the method of valuation was different than that of the preceding year ? 3. However, the Tribunal referred only a modified question as mentioned above. 4. We have heard Mr. GK Joshi, learned counsel for the Revenue assisted by Mr. U Bhuyan, learned junior counsel. None appears for the respondent. 5. Mr. Joshi submits before us that the Tribunal without proper application of mind passed the order justifying the order passed by the AAC. He submits that there is no such provision for multiplication of the rental amount by 10 times. In this connection Mr. Joshi has drawn our attention to section 7 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and also Rule 1BB of Wealth Tax Rules, 1957 as those stood at the relevant time. 6. As per section 7 (1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, as it stood at the relevant time, the value of any asset, other than cash, for the purpose of this Act should be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Assessing Officer would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. We quote section 7(1) of the Act: "7. Value of assets how to be determined : (1) Subject to any rules made in this behalf, the value of any asset, other than cash, for the purpose of this Act, shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Wealth Tax Officer it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. Explanation:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the price or other consideration for which any property may be required by a transferred (sic) to any person under the terms of a deed of trust or through or under any restrictive covenant in any instrument of transfer shall be ignored for the purpose of determining the price such property would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date." 7. From the provisions of section 7 (1) of the Wealth Tax Act it is clear that the valuation of the property is to be determined on the basis of market value meaning thereby that the price that would fetch if it is sold in the market, However, these provisions are subject to Rules. 8. Mr. Joshi has drawn our attention to Rule 1BB for valuation of house which reads thus - "1-BB (1) Valuation of house - (1) For the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 7, the value of a house which is wholly or mainly used for residential purposes shall be the aggregate of the following amounts, namely : (a) the amount arrived at by multiplying the net maintainable rent in respect of the part of the house used for residential purposes by the fraction 100/8; and (b) the amount arrived at by multiplying the net maintainable rent in respect of the remaining part of the house, if any, by the fraction 100/9: Provided that in relation to a house which is built on lease hold land, mis sub-rule shall have effect as if for the fraction 100/8 in clause (a) or as the case may be, the fraction 100/9 in clause (b), the fraction 100/9 and 100/10 respectively had been substituted." 9. The above rule is applicable only in respect of house which is wholly or mainly used for residential purpose and if it is for that purpose, the market value can be arrived at by multiplying as enumerated in the said rule. 10. Admittedly the present building was not used for residential purpose mainly or wholly. It was wholly used for commercial purpose. Therefore, in our opinion, this rule is not applicable. Mr. Joshi submits that there is no other rule in this connection. As Rule 1-BB is not at all applicable, the Wealth Tax Officer is to determine the value of the property only by determining the market value as mentioned section 7 (1) of the Act. 11. In view of the above, we are of opinion that the AAC was not justified to assess the value of the property by using multiplier of 10 times inasmuch as it is the duty of the Wealth Tax Officer to determine the value of the building on the basis of market value as enumerated in section 7 (1) of the Act. Therefore, we are of opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in affirming the decision of the AAC who adopted multiplier of 10 times inasmuch as this mode is not prescribed by the Act as well as the Rule. 12. For the reasons stated above, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.