2004 (9) TMI 21 - HC - Wealth-tax

The valuation was arrived at on the basis of the valuation certificate of a registered valuer who determined the valuation as a mean of the value determined by the land and building method and the rental method. Subsequently, the returns were revised and the value of the factory was declared at Rs. 1,48,500 on the basis of the rental method alone. The Assessing Officer did not accept this valuation and referred the matter to the Department s Valuation Officer - in view of the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee himself had not shown the valuation in his return of income on the basis of the rental method and had also failed to raise any objection to the valuation determined by the District Valuation Officer, it cannot be said that the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the valuation as per the District Valuation Officer s report was in any manner erroneous - Further, It has not been disputed that the assessee had declared himself to be the owner of the whole land in the wealth-tax returns for the assessment years 1968-69 onwards - It is also not in dispute that the assessee has been in adverse possession of the land for more than 12 years - Tribunal was justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in assessing the entire land in the hands of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of immovable property based on rental method.
2. Assessment of the value of Shamlat Deh in the hands of the assessee.

Issue 1: Valuation of immovable property based on rental method

The assessee declared the value of a factory building at Tanda Road, Jalandhar, for multiple assessment years based on a valuation certificate using both land and building method and rental method. However, the Assessing Officer rejected this valuation and referred the matter to the Department's Valuation Officer, who valued the property using the land and building method alone. The Wealth-tax Officer made the assessment based on this valuation, which was upheld in subsequent appeals. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not raise the plea to value the property based on the rental method before the authorities or in the appeal grounds. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee did not follow the rental method in his valuation initially. The Tribunal, therefore, did not allow the assessee to raise the rental method contention and upheld the valuation determined by the District Valuation Officer. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide any material to challenge the District Valuation Officer's report advocating the rental method.

Issue 2: Assessment of the value of Shamlat Deh in the hands of the assessee

The assessee claimed ownership of only a portion of the land, Shamlat Deh, out of the total area, asserting adverse possession for over 12 years. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had consistently declared ownership of the entire land in wealth-tax returns since 1968-69 and had not raised this claim before the Assessing Officer or the District Valuation Officer. The Tribunal also noted the lack of evidence to support the claim of partial ownership. As the issue was not specifically raised in the grounds of appeal, the Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's assessment of the entire land in the hands of the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal justified its decision to assess the entire land in the hands of the assessee.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on both issues. The first issue regarding the valuation of the immovable property based on the rental method was dismissed as the assessee did not raise the plea in a timely manner and failed to provide supporting material. The second issue concerning the ownership of Shamlat Deh was decided in favor of the Revenue, as the assessee's claim of partial ownership was not substantiated and contradicted by past declarations and lack of objections raised earlier in the assessment process.