1985 (4) TMI 111 - AT - Wealth-tax

A Firm, A Partner, Assessment Year, House Property, Industrial Undertaking, Processing Of Goods, Purchase Price, Valuation Date

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for multiple flats.
2. Exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act for interest in Popular Garage.
3. Market value determination of flats for the assessment year 1977-78.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Exemption Under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for Multiple Flats:

The assessee claimed exemption for three flats under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which allows exemption for "one house or part of a house belonging to the assessee to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh." The Commissioner held that the exemption could be claimed only for one flat, as the three flats were separate units. The assessee argued that the three flats should be considered as one house since they were in the same building. However, the Tribunal referred to the decision in CIT v. Joy P. Jacob [1985] 151 ITR 19, which clarified that separate units in a multi-storeyed building should be considered independent house properties. Therefore, the Commissioner was justified in allowing exemption for only one flat. This ground was decided against the assessee.

2. Exemption Under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act for Interest in Popular Garage:

The assessee claimed exemption for her interest in Popular Garage under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, which applies to industrial undertakings engaged in the manufacture or processing of goods. The Commissioner initially denied the exemption, arguing that Popular Garage was only effecting repairs and not engaged in manufacturing or processing. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the work carried out by Popular Garage, which involved reboring automobile and marine engines. The Tribunal concluded that although the activity did not amount to manufacturing or producing new articles, it did constitute processing of goods. The Tribunal referred to several cases, including Addl. CIT v. Kalsi Tyre (P.) Ltd. [1981] 131 ITR 636, which held that retreading of tyres amounted to processing. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim for exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii).

3. Market Value Determination of Flats for the Assessment Year 1977-78:

For the assessment year 1977-78, the Commissioner directed the Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) to redetermine the market value of the flats, considering the high rate of increase in property values in Bombay. The Commissioner accepted the purchase price as the market value for the assessment year 1976-77 but held that the same value should not be blindly adopted for the subsequent year. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this direction, emphasizing that the assessee could present relevant materials to the WTO to establish her case regarding the market value. This ground was decided against the assessee.

Conclusion:

- The appeal for the assessment year 1976-77 was allowed in part, granting exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) for Popular Garage but denying the claim for multiple flats under section 5(1)(iv).
- The appeal for the assessment year 1977-78 was dismissed, upholding the Commissioner's direction to redetermine the market value of the flats.