1980 (6) TMI 65 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act.
2. Valuation of property in Fancy Bazar, Gauhati.
3. Classification of land at Satgaon as non-agricultural.
4. Estimation of movable property.
5. Disallowance of exemption for shares in North Eastern Hotel (P) Ltd.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act:
The assessee contended that there was no surplus land after the sale of 6 kathas of land, arguing that the entire property comprised 6 kathas and not 6 kathas and 10 1/2 lachas. Consequently, the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) should have granted exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act for the main property instead of the dwelling house, which did not exist. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) rejected this claim, stating that the assessee failed to substantiate it. The Tribunal noted that the WTO could have verified this claim through local inquiries, which was not done, leading to a gross miscarriage of justice.

2. Valuation of Property in Fancy Bazar, Gauhati:
The assessee argued that the valuation of the property situated in Fancy Bazar, Gauhati, which was fully let out, was adopted disproportionately and without any basis. The WTO estimated the property value at a high rate, considering the appreciation due to the shifting of the Assam Government's capital to Gauhati. The AAC upheld the WTO's valuation but adjusted the value for the assessment year 1965-66 to Rs. 75,000. The Tribunal found that the WTO should have used the capitalization of gross rentals method for valuation, given the rent control laws applicable to the property.

3. Classification of Land at Satgaon as Non-Agricultural:
The assessee claimed that the land at Satgaon measuring 7 Bighas 2 kathas and 3 lachas was agricultural, but the WTO treated it as non-agricultural without proper inquiries. The AAC justified the WTO's action due to the absence of supporting evidence from the assessee. The Tribunal criticized the WTO for not making proper inquiries from the Revenue authorities, which was necessary for natural justice.

4. Estimation of Movable Property:
The assessee contested the estimation of movable property, arguing that she did not maintain any bank account or cash deposits. The WTO estimated movable property from year to year without any basis. The AAC upheld the WTO's estimation, considering it commensurate with the assessee's status. The Tribunal noted that the WTO mentioned specific bank account balances but still estimated the value of movables without any basis, which was unjustified.

5. Disallowance of Exemption for Shares in North Eastern Hotel (P) Ltd.:
The assessee argued that the disallowance of exemption for shares held in North Eastern Hotel (P) Ltd. was unwarranted. The WTO treated the amount as an advance for shares, not as owned shares, thus denying the exemption. The AAC upheld this view. The Tribunal found that the WTO's and AAC's reasoning lacked proper verification and evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the assessments for all the assessment years under appeal, noting that the WTO's assessments lacked basis, material, and evidence. The AAC's order was also set aside. The cases were restored to the WTO for fresh assessments according to law and the Tribunal's observations. The appeals by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.