1996 (9) TMI 624 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to property assessment based on different annual values for specific years and subsequent recoveries.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, challenged the assessment of their property in New Delhi and the annual values fixed for specific years, along with the recoveries based on those assessments. The assessments were confirmed by an appellate authority in a judgment dated 18.11.1981. The petitioner contended that the assessments were not in accordance with established principles as laid down in previous cases. The assessing authorities had fixed the annual values under Section 9(4) of the Drc Act, which the petitioner argued was not the correct method. The Supreme Court's observations in Dr. Balbir Singh & Others v. Mcd & Others emphasized the need for assessments to be made under specific sections of the Drc Act. The court found that the assessments under Section 9(4) were not valid and directed the Ndmc to reassess the property in accordance with Section 6(l)(A)(2)(b) of the Act.

The Ndmc contested the writ petition, justifying the annual values fixed under Section 9(4) of the Drc Act. However, the court found that the assessing authorities should have used the provisions of Section 6(l)(A)(2)(b) or 6(1)(B)(2)(b) for determining the standard rent, rather than resorting to Section 9(4) arbitrarily. The court noted that the petitioner's failure to provide necessary data and evidence could lead to adverse inferences being drawn against them. The court also referred to previous judgments, such as MCD v. Parmeshwari Devi Zurekha and MCD v. N.C. Jain, which emphasized the proper methods for assessing property values and determining standard rents.

In light of the arguments presented and the legal precedents cited, the court quashed the impugned resolutions and judgments related to the assessments. The Ndmc was directed to reassess the property in accordance with the principles outlined in Dr. Balbir Singh v. MCD, while ensuring the petitioner had an opportunity to be heard during the reassessment process. The writ petition was disposed of, with each party bearing their own costs.