9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Common issue against the order of CWT(A) regarding the valuation of land and building by DVO. Analysis: For the assessment year 1986-87, the assessee declared the property value at Rs. 2,47,170, while the District Valuation Officer (DVO) valued it at Rs. 15,04,33,000. The AO framed the wealth-tax assessment based on the DVO's valuation. The assessee contended that the property should be valued according to the Rent Control Act and Sch. III of WT Act, using the rent capitalization method, resulting in a value of Rs. 2,65,190. The assessee also argued for a lower valuation due to excess vacant land and other factors. The CWT(A) allowed a relief of 15% in the land valuation by the DVO, leading to an appeal by the Revenue solely on this relief. During the appeal, the Revenue challenged the 15% relief granted by the CWT(A) in the land valuation. The CWT(A) had considered the DVO's valuation based on sale instances in the same locality and upheld the relief, citing a judgment by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. The CWT(A) found the DVO's increase in land value unjustified, as the sale instances used were similarly located properties. The CWT(A) granted the relief based on the valuation discrepancies highlighted. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue failed to provide any substantial evidence to dispute the CWT(A)'s findings, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and confirmation of the CWT(A)'s order to delete the 15% increase in land value by the DVO. In conclusion, the appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years were dismissed. The judgment emphasized the importance of valuing properties based on comparable instances in the same locality and upheld the relief granted by the CWT(A) in reducing the land valuation by 15% due to discrepancies in the DVO's valuation methodology.
|
