9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of property at Bull Temple Road. 2. Valuation of Garbavipalya land. 3. Valuation of Sarakki Layout sites. 4. Method of valuation and cost index application. Detailed Analysis: 1. Valuation of Property at Bull Temple Road: The primary issue was whether 45,000 sq. ft. of land at Bull Temple Road should be treated as land not appurtenant to the buildings and thus liable to tax. The assessee argued that the definition of appurtenant land used by the CIT(A) was not applicable to their case, where the buildings were large and used for industrial purposes. The CIT(A) had relied on a site plan by M/s Sundaram Consultants, which showed the unbuilt area of land as 34,541 sq. ft. The CIT(A) considered the total area covered by exempted buildings and concluded that about 1/3rd of the area should be treated as land appurtenant to them. Upon reviewing the site plan, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that substantial portions of the land were free and could not be termed as appurtenant to the buildings. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s conclusion that 45,000 sq. ft. of land, including the guest-house, should be included in the wealth of the assessee. 2. Valuation of Garbavipalya Land: The assessee declared the value of the Garbavipalya land at Rs. 2,75,622, while the Departmental Valuation Officer determined higher values for different years. The Valuation Officer had accepted some of the assessee's contentions regarding the land's disadvantages, such as water logging and lack of civic amenities, and allowed a 5% reduction. The CIT(A) allowed a further 5% reduction, making it a total of 10%. The Tribunal found the orders of the lower authorities to be comprehensive and reasoned, thus finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision. 3. Valuation of Sarakki Layout Sites: The assessee contested the valuation of 12 sites at Sarakki Layout, arguing that the high voltage power line running across the sites should reduce their value. The District Valuation Officer found that only four sites were affected by the power line and observed no slum existence. The AO adopted the value estimated by the District Valuation Officer. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the real estate value in urban areas, especially in Bangalore, increased faster than the cost index of consumer items. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the lower authorities' valuation methods. 4. Method of Valuation and Cost Index Application: The assessee argued that the value of sites should be determined by adopting the cost index notified by the Government. The CIT(A) disagreed, noting that the cost index increase of consumer items did not reflect the real estate value increase in Bangalore. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view, agreeing that the rates adopted by the Valuation Officer more realistically represented the property values on the respective valuation dates. The Tribunal found the valuation methods justified and dismissed the assessee's contentions. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals, upholding the comprehensive and reasoned orders of the CIT(A). The valuation of properties at Bull Temple Road, Garbavipalya, and Sarakki Layout was found to be appropriate, and the methods used by the Valuation Officer and AO were deemed realistic and justified.
|
