9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Rule 8(b) read with Rule 20(2) of Wealth-tax Rules for determining the value of house property. 2. Validity of reference made by the Assessing Officer to the District Valuation Officer. 3. Method of valuation adopted by the Departmental Authorities. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Rule 8(b) read with Rule 20(2) of Wealth-tax Rules: The main contention was whether the valuation of the property known as 'Jaipur House' should be determined under Rule 8(b) read with Rule 20(2) of Wealth-tax Rules or under Rule 3 of Schedule III of the Wealth-tax Act. The assessee argued that Schedule III, effective from 1-4-1989, should apply retrospectively to the assessment year 1987-88, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons, which held that procedural laws apply to all pending proceedings. The Department contended that J.D.A. Regulations, effective from 25-6-1996, should not apply retrospectively. The Tribunal held that Schedule III, being procedural, applies retrospectively. Consequently, J.D.A. Regulations, part of Rule 6, should also apply retrospectively. Thus, Rule 8(b) read with Rule 20 was not applicable, and the specified area should be calculated as per J.D.A. Regulations. 2. Validity of Reference Made by the Assessing Officer to the District Valuation Officer: The assessee challenged the reference made by the Assessing Officer to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) on the grounds that there was no reasonable belief that the value returned by the assessee was less than the fair market value. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's reference was based on a newspaper report without detailed local inquiry or material evidence. The Tribunal held that the mere newspaper report was insufficient for making a reference to the DVO, especially considering the significant time lapse since the assessment year in question. Therefore, the reference made to the DVO was deemed invalid. 3. Method of Valuation Adopted by the Departmental Authorities: The assessee objected to the valuation method adopted by the Departmental Authorities, particularly the further increase in the value of the land by 29% due to the time gap between the sale of another property and the valuation date. However, since the Tribunal allowed the legal grounds in favor of the assessee regarding the applicability of Schedule III and the invalidity of the reference to the DVO, it did not find it necessary to examine the merits of the valuation method adopted by the Departmental Authorities. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee, holding that Schedule III and J.D.A. Regulations should apply retrospectively, and the reference to the DVO was invalid due to lack of sufficient material evidence. The valuation method adopted by the Departmental Authorities was not examined in detail as the legal grounds were already decided in favor of the assessee.
|
