Ajoy Nath Ray, Depak Prakas Kundu ( 1 ) TO understand the question sought to be got referred some brief facts are necessary. The land in question at Gurusaday Dutt Road belonged to one Farooque, who died in April, 1984. His wealth-tax assessment for the accounting year ending March 31, 1984, accepted at that time the valuation of the house and land at Rs. 18 lakhs and odd. ( 2 ) WHILE Farooque was alive the land had been sought to be acquired and Farooque had made a claim to the authorities for compensation upwards of Rs. 60 lakhs. ( 3 ) ULTIMATELY, however, after issuance of advertisements inviting objections, the possession of the land was taken and, therefore, vesting occurred, as late as in 1987. ( 4 ) THE awarded compensation as on that basis came to about Rs. 59 lakhs which included Rs. 9 lakhs and odd as solatium and about Rs. 18 lakhs and half by way of interest. ( 5 ) THE questions framed before us arise out of this contention, that if the land and building ultimately fetched in 1987 nearly Rs. 59 lakhs by way of compensation, should not be the estate duty assessment made for the estate which passed in 1984, also accept some such figure for estate duty assessment ? Alternatively, should not the receipt of such compensation later on be an important and predominant factor in the matter of assessment of value of the purpose of estate duty ? ( 6 ) IN our opinion, the problem raised above is not a problem involving a question of law. We are not involved with deciding whether the duty paid is just and equitable on broad principles of what is right or what is wrong. We are concerned only with the questions of law, which must be specific and exact in situations of calculation of tax and duty. ( 7 ) THE wealth-tax assessment has been made on the basis of rental valuation. Acceptance of such valuation for the purpose of estate duty discloses absolutely no error of law and involves no proceeding on any misapprehension of any principles of valuation. Rental value is a well accepted way of valuation, if not the most widely accepted method. ( 7 ) THE wealth-tax assessment has been made on the basis of rental valuation. Acceptance of such valuation for the purpose of estate duty discloses absolutely no error of law and involves no proceeding on any misapprehension of any principles of valuation. Rental value is a well accepted way of valuation, if not the most widely accepted method. It is possible that according to some valuer the later compensation received for the property might be included in the valuation of the interest of the deceased Farooque in April, 1984, in the property which was under a possibility of acquisition, but we cannot call for a reference on a point of law because some valuer choosing subjective method might have found the possibility of compensation to be an important factor. ( 8 ) IT is to be borne in mind that when Farooque died the acquisition of property was not a matter of absolute certainty. There was perhaps a good likelihood of acquisition but it cannot be said, from the exact formulation of a lawyer's point of view, that acquisition was a certainty. If acquisition were not a certainty in April, 1984, the assessment of the compensation money which might, on a possibility, be got later on could not be a relevant factor in valuing Farooque's estate in April, 1984. ( 9 ) IT would be most unjust to opine that the concerned Estate Duty Officer would have to make a valuation in April, 1984, on the basis of the wisdom which he acquired from later evidence which might have turned out quite differently than how the events actually turned out. ( 10 ) THUS, when the Tribunal directed the valuation of the property to be made on the basis of the wealth-tax assessment, the Tribunal was adopting a just and rational procedure and no point of law was involved. ( 11 ) IT appears to us on the other hand that the view that the compensation obtained three years after the death of Farooque is a relevant factor in valuing the estate at the time of death is itself an erroneous view of the law. If theoretically the estate could be valued without the usual delays of the law and immediately on death, where would any facts and figures be available, regarding later compensation, which was still in the womb of future ? If theoretically the estate could be valued without the usual delays of the law and immediately on death, where would any facts and figures be available, regarding later compensation, which was still in the womb of future ? Thus, the valuation as made consistently with the wealth-tax valuation was not erroneous in law and no doubtful principle is involved. ( 12 ) WE are told that the wealth-tax assessment itself has also been reopened on the same basis that the compensation got by way of acquisition was proportionately larger than the value that had been accepted for the purpose of wealth-tax valuation. We are not concerned with that reopening here. We have, however, the undisputed fact before us that prior to taking of possession, vesting of property and award of compensation, the wealth-tax valuation had stood firm right from Farooque's death for at least three years thereafter if not for a longer period of time. Therefore, that the wealth-tax assessment has been reopened later does not alter our views or the reasoning given above. ( 13 ) THE order and observations here are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and the Department in the wealth-tax matter. ( 14 ) ON behalf of the Department, the case of CWT v. U. C. Mahatab was cited. This related to acquisition of estates under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. Apart from the other points of distinction, it would be very dangerous to equate such an acquisition to acquisition made under the Act of 1894. Under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act of 1953 there is no stage of invitation of objections or the taking of a decision thereupon. The stage at which Farooque died was an uncertain stage because it was possible, although it might have been unlikely, that the acquisition would not ultimately go through. Such a stage would be impossible for acquisitions made under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act of 1953. We also mention here the case of CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swamp and Sons cited by Mr. Bajoria for the assessee. We respectfully adopt the approval given by the Supreme Court, there to the adoption of the rental method of valuation. We. have respectfully adopted that principle in our line of reasoning as well. The rule is, therefore, discharged. We also mention here the case of CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swamp and Sons cited by Mr. Bajoria for the assessee. We respectfully adopt the approval given by the Supreme Court, there to the adoption of the rental method of valuation. We. have respectfully adopted that principle in our line of reasoning as well. The rule is, therefore, discharged. All parties and all others concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this dictated order on the usual undertakings.