1982 (9) TMI 3 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of surplus lands under the Wealth-tax Act.
2. Consideration of compensation receivable under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961.

Summary:

1. Valuation of Surplus Lands under the Wealth-tax Act:
The primary issue was whether the surplus lands belonging to the assessees should be valued based on the compensation receivable under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, or at the market value as per section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act (W.T. Act). The Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) valued all lands at Rs. 3,000 per acre for wet lands and Rs. 1,000 per acre for dry lands, arguing that assets must be valued at the price they would fetch if sold in the open market, regardless of the ceiling restrictions.

2. Consideration of Compensation Receivable:
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) agreed with the assessees' contention that the valuation of surplus lands should be based on the compensation receivable from the Government, fixing the value at Rs. 1,650 per acre for wet lands and Rs. 900 per acre for dry lands. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the restrictions imposed by the Ceiling Act would depress the market value of the lands.

The Revenue argued that the WTO should value the lands based on the hypothetical market value, ignoring the restrictions of the Ceiling Act, citing Supreme Court decisions in Ahmed G. H. Ariff v. CWT and Purushottam N. Amarsey v. CWT. However, the court held that the restrictions and prohibitions of the Ceiling Act must be considered as they affect the market value of the lands.

The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in CWT v. Sikand, which supported the view that restrictions affecting the value of an asset must be considered. The court concluded that the value of the lands should reflect the restrictions and prohibitions, and thus, the compensation fixed by the Government could be taken as the approximate market value.

The question was answered in the affirmative, supporting the Tribunal's decision to value the surplus lands based on the compensation receivable under the Ceiling Act. The assessees were awarded costs from the Revenue, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 500.