1983 (2) TMI 115 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption under section 5(1)(x) of the Wealth-tax Act for the value of library books.
2. Valuation of a plot at Neeti Bagh and the restrictions on transfer affecting its market value.

Issue 1: Exemption under section 5(1)(x) of the Wealth-tax Act for the value of library books.

The respondent-assessee, a resident individual and citizen of India, appealed against the valuation of library books as part of wealth for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The revenue challenged the exemption granted under section 5(1)(x) of the Wealth-tax Act, arguing that the books were not tools or instruments necessary for carrying on the profession. The Appellate Tribunal held that as a senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, the library of a lawyer, including law books, furniture, and equipment, constituted tools and instruments for the legal profession. Citing section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal emphasized that books could be considered 'plant' and essential for business purposes. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the book valuation from the assessee's wealth, concluding that the revenue's appeals were unfounded.

Issue 2: Valuation of a plot at Neeti Bagh and the restrictions on transfer affecting its market value.

In another appeal, the revenue contested the reduction in the valuation of a plot at Neeti Bagh from Rs. 38,703 to Rs. 12,340, arguing that the original valuation was more accurate. The plot was sub-leased to the assessee, subject to restrictions on transfer imposed by the lessor Co-operative House Building Society. The perpetual sub-lease and society bye-laws prohibited the transfer of the plot to non-members and limited members to one plot each. The Tribunal considered these restrictions and previous case law, including CWT v. Smt. Promila Bali, where the valuation was based on the contribution to the society due to transfer restrictions. Following the precedent and the Delhi High Court's ruling on valuation of non-transferable plots, the Tribunal upheld the lower valuation, stating that the premium paid by the assessee reflected the market value due to the restrictions on transfer. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---