2001 (6) TMI 47 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under section 27A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 against the appellate order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1987-88.
2. Valuation of immovable property at Ali Askar Road, Bangalore for wealth-tax assessment.
3. Adherence to valuation methods under Schedule III of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed under section 27A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 against the appellate order by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1987-88. The Wealth-tax Officer initially valued the immovable property of the assessee at Rs. 1,37,66,663. The Appellate Commissioner directed the adoption of the fair market value of the property at Rs. 49,01,200 as estimated by the District Valuation Officer, Bangalore. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the Departmental Valuation Officer's valuation should be accepted. The Tribunal's decision was based on the law laid down by the Supreme Court regarding valuation methods.

2. The valuation of the property at Ali Askar Road, Bangalore was a significant issue in the case. The Appellate Commissioner had referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer, who estimated the fair market value of the property at Rs. 49,01,200. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to value the property by applying Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act, emphasizing the procedural nature of the valuation methods. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the Supreme Court's ruling and a Division Bench of the High Court, which held that matters pending on April 1, 1989, should be determined in accordance with Schedule III.

3. The application of valuation methods under Schedule III of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The Tribunal's decision to direct the District Valuation Officer to value the property using Schedule III was challenged by the Revenue. However, the court found no substance in the Revenue's argument, stating that the order passed in the Revenue's appeal did not prevent the assessee from challenging the valuation. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, highlighting that the matter had been conclusively settled by previous decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court, and no referable questions of law arose from the Tribunal's order.