2009 (8) TMI 67 - HC - Wealth-tax

Valuation Exemption - that with the introduction of sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act by the Finance Act, 1976, with effect from 1.4.1976, the position of the residential house would not change. It is only provided for freezing the valuation of the residential house at the option of the assessee and nothing more. This Court has further held that in several cities there are old bungalows having large area running into several acres of land but nonetheless they are treated as one residential house. The vacant land which is there in the house is being used as garden, lawns etc. and, therefore, could not have been valued separately.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of property value under Wealth Tax Act for assessment years 1987-88, 1988-89, and 1989-90.

Analysis:
The appeal in question pertains to the assessment years 1987-88, 1988-89, and 1989-90 concerning the valuation of a residential property owned by the respondent assessee located at Station Road, Moradabad. The assessing officer had valued the constructed portion of the property at a frozen value and separately valued the land. The learned first appellate authority directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the value of the property as shown by the assessee, which was contested by the Revenue leading to the present appeal.

The key substantial questions of law framed in the memo of appeal revolve around whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Dy. CIT (Appeals) regarding the valuation of the land along with the residential house under Section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax Act. The Tribunal had directed full exemption under Section 5(i)(iv) for the house and land, which was separately shown by the assessee. The controversy in the present appeals was found to be covered by a judgment in Wealth Tax Reference No. 113 of 1990, which was in the assessee's own case for assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81, and 1982-83.

Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted that the freezing of valuation of a residential house under Section 7(4) of the Act does not alter the position of the house and is merely an option for the assessee. It was noted that old bungalows with extensive land are treated as one residential house, and the vacant land within the property is considered part of the house, used for gardens or lawns. The Court upheld the Tribunal's order based on these principles and previous decisions, dismissing the appeal by the Revenue with no order as to costs.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the valuation of residential property under the Wealth Tax Act, emphasizing the treatment of land along with the house, the freezing of valuation, and the application of relevant legal provisions and precedents to determine the appropriate assessment for the given assessment years.