1985 (12) TMI 34 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Deduction of expenses in computing market value of property.
2. Consideration of events post-valuation date in determining market value.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the valuation of a property known as 'Rewa House' in Bombay. The questions revolved around the deduction of expenses incurred in connection with the sale of the property and the consideration of subsequent events in determining the market value.

2. The property was partitioned into three portions, and all portions were eventually sold for approximately Rs. 39 lakhs. The assessee claimed deductions for expenses incurred in the sale of portion 'B' and an additional payment received for floor space index. The Tribunal had to decide whether these deductions were valid in computing the market value of the property as on the valuation dates.

3. The Tribunal held that the market value of the property should be based on the gross sale proceeds without deductions for expenses incurred in the sale. The additional payment for floor space index was also not eligible for deduction as it was not stipulated in the sale agreement. Therefore, the total sale price received by the assessee was considered as the market value of the property.

4. The Tribunal further justified its decision by stating that events occurring post-valuation date could not be considered in determining the market value. The Tribunal provided adjustments for interest on the sale price received in instalments, resulting in a fair assessment of the property's market value.

5. The High Court rejected the arguments presented by the assessee's counsel, emphasizing that the High Court's role in reference matters is advisory, and it does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over the Tribunal's decisions. The High Court's function is to provide opinions on specific legal questions raised by the parties involved.

6. Ultimately, the High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, upholding the Tribunal's decision on both issues. The Tribunal was cautioned to be cautious in referring questions to the High Court when the answers are evident from existing legal precedents. The assessee was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.