1980 (4) TMI 211 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of agricultural land
2. Valuation of residential house
3. Valuation of rented properties
4. Inclusion of share of lineal descendant in estate for rate purposes

Valuation of Agricultural Land:
The appeal concerns the estate duty assessment of the late individual's estate. The accountable person contested the valuation of agricultural land, initially valued at Rs. 3,000 by the deceased. The Appellate Controller determined the value at Rs. 7,000, providing a relief of Rs. 3,000. Upon further review, the Tribunal estimated the value at Rs. 4,000, granting the accountable person an additional relief of Rs. 3,000. The decision was based on the purchase price of Rs. 3,000 in 1974 and the lack of evidence supporting the higher valuation by the Asstt. CED.

Valuation of Residential House:
Regarding the valuation of the residential house, initially valued at Rs. 40,000, the Appellate Controller upheld the Asstt. CED's valuation of Rs. 60,000. However, the Tribunal, considering the age of the house and lack of evidence, determined the valuation at Rs. 50,000. This adjustment provided a relief of Rs. 10,000 to the accountable person, with 1/3rd of the value being exempted.

Valuation of Rented Properties:
The accountable person contested the valuation of a rented property, which was calculated at 16 times the net rental by the Asstt. CED. The Tribunal noted previous cases where 12 times the net rental was adopted for valuation and deemed the accountable person's valuation of 15 times fair and reasonable. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the accountable person's valuation for the rented property.

Inclusion of Share of Lineal Descendant:
The main issue revolved around the inclusion of the lineal descendant's share in the estate for rate purposes. The accountable person argued against this inclusion, citing legal precedents. The Tribunal examined various decisions and legal provisions, ultimately upholding the Asstt. CED's decision to include the lineal descendant's share for rate purposes. The Tribunal noted conflicting views across different High Courts but followed the majority opinion that the inclusion was justified. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, directing the Asst. CED to adjust the order in line with the reliefs granted.

---