2003 (8) TMI 17 - HC - Wealth-tax

Valuation of land and building and plant and machinery - 1. Whether, Tribunal was right in law in accepting the valuation of the registered valuer who valued land and building and plant and machinery at Rs. 48,32,113 whereas the Departmental Valuation Officer after considering the various factors made the valuation of the above property at Rs. 1,06,88,000? - 2. Whether, Tribunal was right in law in allowing deduction at 15 per cent, out of the valuation of land and building and plant and machinery on account of joint ownership? - Once, the whole controversy has been decided upon existing and verified facts in the method of evaluating land and building and plant and machinery of the assessee, and valuation based upon the GAV, has been rejected, in our considered view, no question of law arises for determination.

Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of land, building, and plant and machinery for wealth tax assessment.
2. Acceptance of valuation by registered valuer over Departmental Valuation Officer's valuation.
3. Dismissal of reference application under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.

Issue 1: Valuation of land, building, and plant and machinery for wealth tax assessment

The case involved a dispute regarding the valuation of land, building, and plant and machinery of a cinema theatre for wealth tax assessment. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax made an application to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer certain questions of law. The Tribunal dismissed the reference application, leading to a petition under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, seeking adjudication on the valuation questions. The Departmental Valuation Officer and a registered valuer provided different valuations for the property, leading to a disagreement on the assessment value.

Issue 2: Acceptance of valuation by registered valuer over Departmental Valuation Officer's valuation

The petitioner contended that the registered valuer's valuation should be accepted over the Departmental Valuation Officer's valuation. The registered valuer used different valuation methods, including the yield method, which the Departmental Valuation Officer did not consider. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal wrongly ignored certain factors considered by the registered valuer, such as auction prices of nearby land. The Tribunal accepted the registered valuer's valuation, leading to the petitioner's appeal for reference under section 27(1) of the Act, which was dismissed.

Issue 3: Dismissal of reference application under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957

The Tribunal rejected the reference application under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, stating that no referable question of law had arisen. The petitioner argued that the Departmental Valuer relied only on the land and building method of valuation, while the registered valuer used additional methods. The petitioner contended that factors like nearby land auction prices were wrongly ignored by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision was based on existing and verifiable facts, rejecting the Department's reliance on auction prices of cinema plots for valuation.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as no referable question of law arose regarding the valuation of the property. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to accept the valuation by the registered valuer over the Departmental Valuation Officer's valuation, based on the justifiable grounds and existing facts presented during the proceedings.

← Previous Next →