9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the value of the residential house property. 2. Allowance of liability amounting to Rs. 81,410. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of the value of the residential house property: The primary issue revolves around whether the valuation of the residential house property should be determined under Section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax (WT) Act or Rule 1BB of the WT Rules. The assessee argued that the property should be valued under Rule 1BB, which was introduced with retrospective effect from April 1, 1979, as supported by the judgment in CWT vs. Kasturbhai Mayabhai. The assessee's counsel contended that the valuation as per Rule 1BB could not be submitted earlier because the rule was introduced later. The Registered Valuer's report, based on the annual letting value (ALV) adopted by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, valued the property at Rs. 15,600 under Rule 1BB. The Departmental Representative argued that neither the WTO nor the AAC had considered whether the property met the conditions prescribed under Rule 1BB. The representative also pointed out that the assessee had originally declared the property's value at Rs. 1,91,128, and there was no justification for reducing it to Rs. 15,600 under Rule 1BB. After reviewing the submissions and documents, including the Registered Valuer's report, the tribunal noted that the annual letting value adopted by the Municipal Corporation was a valid basis for determining the property's value under Rule 1BB. However, it was essential to verify if all conditions for applying Rule 1BB were met. Therefore, the tribunal restored the matter to the AAC to examine the applicability of Rule 1BB. If the conditions were met, the value determined by the Registered Valuer (Rs. 15,600) should be accepted. The AAC was directed to decide the matter after giving both parties an opportunity to present their case. 2. Allowance of liability amounting to Rs. 81,410: The second issue concerned the allowance of a liability amounting to Rs. 81,410, representing a loan taken for constructing the residential house property. The WTO had allowed only a proportionate amount of Rs. 57,789, based on the exempted value of the property under Section 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act. The Departmental Representative supported this view, citing the judgment in CIT vs. K.S. Vaidhyanath. The assessee's counsel argued that the entire loan amount should be allowed as a deduction, relying on the ITAT's decision in M.V. Subbiah vs. WTO, which was based on the Board's Instruction No. 1070 dated June 28, 1977. This instruction stated that in the absence of clear guidance in the Act, deductions for debts should be allowed in a manner most beneficial to the assessee. The tribunal agreed with the assessee's counsel, noting that the beneficial Circular issued by the CBDT supported the full deduction of the liability. However, if the property's value was finally determined under Rule 1BB and fell below Rs. 1 lakh (exempt under Section 5(1)(iv)), no liability would be deductible for computing taxable wealth. Conclusion: The tribunal allowed the departmental appeal and the assessee's cross-objection for statistical purposes. The matter of the property's valuation was remanded to the AAC to verify the applicability of Rule 1BB, and the deduction of the liability was upheld based on the beneficial Circular, subject to the final determination of the property's value.
|
