2009 (3) TMI 499 - HC - Wealth-tax

Valuation of House- The assessee, a limited company in which the public are substantially interested, carried on business in textiles. The company was closed on April 1, 1991, due to various reasons. The net worth of the company was completely eroded and it was declared a sick company under section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The assessee converted certain properties as stock-in-trade in the year 1981-82. The assessee filed wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1993-94 declaring wealth of Rs. 8,77,741. The Assessing Officer, however, completed the assessment determining the net wealth at Rs. 47,15,24,500. Against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), who partly allowed the appeal. Against that order, both the assessee and the Revenue filed appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee s appeal and partly allowed the Department s appeal. Hence the present appeals before this court at the instance of the assessee. Held that- the Commissioner of Wealth tax (Appeals) ought to have given an opportunity to the assessee to place the materials as required under the Rules and ought to have adjudicated the issue without rejecting it on the premise that it had not been taken before the Assessing Officer. The claim for exemption under section 7(4) had also not been considered. The order of Tribunal was not valid.

Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of properties under Rule 20 vs. Rule 3 of Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
2. Levy of wealth-tax on properties used as transit houses for business purposes.
3. Deduction of proportionate debts while computing net wealth.
4. Valuation of properties at guideline value or cost inflation index vs. actual sale realization.
5. Levy of wealth-tax on properties owned by a company in which the public is substantially interested.
6. Valuation of guest houses and their liability to wealth-tax.
7. Valuation of tank bund property.
8. Valuation of joint school compound property.
9. Levy of wealth-tax on let-out properties.
10. Levy of wealth-tax on properties considered commercial establishments.
11. Valuation of Magadi road property.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Valuation of Properties (Rule 20 vs. Rule 3):
The court examined whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in confirming the valuation of properties as per Rule 20 instead of Rule 3 of Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act, without considering the built-up area of certain structures like pathways, servant quarters, and other amenities. The court noted that the term "land appurtenant thereto" must be interpreted properly and considered in light of various judgments.

2. Levy of Wealth-tax on Transit Houses:
The court addressed whether properties used as transit houses for business purposes should be excluded from the definition of assets under section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act. It was argued that these properties were occupied by employees earning less than Rs. 2 lakhs per annum and should not be assessed under wealth-tax. The court found merit in this argument, stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered this contention.

3. Deduction of Proportionate Debts:
The court considered whether the Tribunal was right in not deducting proportionate debts while computing net wealth as per section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act. The court did not provide a detailed analysis on this issue but implied that all issues should be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer.

4. Valuation of Properties (Guideline Value vs. Actual Sale Realization):
The court evaluated whether the Tribunal was correct in confirming property values based on guideline value or cost inflation index instead of actual sale realization. The court suggested that the actual sale realization should be considered, especially when it is significantly lower than the assessed values.

5. Levy of Wealth-tax on Publicly Interested Company Properties:
The court examined whether wealth-tax should be levied on properties owned by a company in which the public is substantially interested. The court implied that such properties might be exempt from wealth-tax under certain conditions and required further examination by the Assessing Officer.

6. Valuation of Guest Houses:
The court reviewed the Tribunal's decision to confirm the value of guest houses, noting that only fifty percent of the values were liable to wealth-tax for certain assessment years. The court indicated that the use of these properties for residential purposes by employees should be considered.

7. Valuation of Tank Bund Property:
The court assessed whether the Tribunal was correct in valuing the tank bund property based on a previous assessment year value. The court suggested that the valuation should be reconsidered, taking into account updated and accurate assessments.

8. Valuation of Joint School Compound Property:
The court considered whether the Tribunal was right in valuing the joint school compound property based on the value of another property. The court indicated that the specific valuation of the joint school property should be reassessed.

9. Levy of Wealth-tax on Let-out Properties:
The court addressed whether wealth-tax should be levied on properties that were let out during the year, which are excluded from the definition of assets under section 2(ea)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act. The court suggested that the exclusion should be properly applied.

10. Levy of Wealth-tax on Commercial Establishments:
The court examined whether wealth-tax should be levied on properties considered commercial establishments, which are excluded under section 2(ea)(i)(5) of the Wealth-tax Act. The court indicated that the nature of the properties should be accurately determined.

11. Valuation of Magadi Road Property:
The court reviewed whether the Tribunal was correct in confirming the value of the Magadi road property, which was previously remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The court directed that the valuation should be reassessed.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the orders of the authorities below, including the Tribunal, should be set aside and the matter remitted to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of all issues afresh. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider all issues with supporting materials and in line with the legal principles discussed. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were dismissed.

← Previous Next →