1984 (9) TMI 112 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues: Valuation of immovable properties for wealth tax assessment

1. Valuation of House Property at 8 Keeling Road, New Delhi:
The assessee valued the property at Rs. 30,828, while the Valuation Officer assessed it at Rs. 9,00,500. The CIT (A) rejected the assessee's request for valuation under rule 188. The Tribunal directed the valuation under rule 1BB, considering the decision in Biju Patnaik vs. WTO. The Tribunal instructed the WTO to value the property keeping in mind the direction given in the Biju Patnaik case.

2. Gurunanak Auto Market, Kashmere Gate Delhi:
The commercial property, owned partially by the assessee, was valued differently by the assessee, Valuation Officer, and CWT (A). The CWT (A) upheld a valuation of Rs. 6,31,250, considering the net annual rental and capitalization. The assessee contended for a deduction of 1/6th for repairs, which was accepted by the Tribunal. The collection charges were also adjusted to 6% based on the number of tenants. The multiple for capitalization was corrected to 100/9.

3. Gurunanak Market Extension, Kashmere Gate, Delhi:
Similar to the Gurunanak Auto Market, the valuation of this commercial property was disputed. The Tribunal directed the allowance of 1/6th for repairs and adjusted the collection charges to 6%. The multiple for capitalization was corrected to 100/9.

4. Gurunanak Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi:
The valuation of this commercial property was challenged by the assessee due to the multiple used for capitalization. The Tribunal directed the application of a multiple of 100/9 for valuation.

5. Mehrauli House:
The valuation of this residential property was contested by the assessee, urging for valuation under rule 188, which was accepted by the Tribunal.

6. Valuation of Land at Shakarpur:
The valuation of land jointly owned by the assessee and another party was disputed. The Tribunal upheld the valuation by the lower authorities, considering the appreciation in the value of land over the years.

7. Valuation of Agricultural Land:
The valuation of agricultural land owned by the assessee was disputed, with varying valuations by different parties. The Tribunal upheld the valuation by the CWT (A), considering the sale instances provided by the assessee.

8. Exemption of Certain Items from Net Wealth:
The assessee claimed exemption for items like a tubewell, iron gate, barbed wire, and trees. The Tribunal rejected the claim for the tubewell and iron gate but restored the matter to the WTO for further examination regarding the exemption of trees standing on agricultural land.

9. Valuation of Plot No. 154, Moti Khan, New Delhi:
The valuation of a plot obtained on perpetual lease was disputed, with differing valuations by the assessee and the Valuation Officer. The Tribunal restored the matter to the ITO for re-examination regarding the justification for the valuation based on comparable cases and agreements of sale.

Judgment Outcome:
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and partially allowed the departmental appeal, directing corrections in valuation methodologies and considerations for specific properties and items.