2005 (10) TMI 71 - HC - Wealth-tax

Valuing the Asset (cold storage) method of valuation - - Whether, Tribunal was justified in applying income capitalization method on average profit for three years in valuing the cold storage in dispute and also holding that the book value of the assets is to be taken into consideration and capital in the firm is not to be added back separately? - we may place on record that none of the standing counsel could show us anything to take a different view than taken by the Tribunal if the valuation of the cold storage has to be done by adopting income capitalization method. - We, therefore, reframe the question of law referred to us in the following manner Whether Tribunal was justified in adopting the income capitalization method to value the cold storage? - Accordingly, we answer the reframed question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the income capitalization method for valuing the cold storage.
2. Consideration of book value of assets and exclusion of separate addition of capital in the firm.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the Income Capitalization Method for Valuing the Cold Storage:

The Tribunal applied the income capitalization method based on the average profit for three years to value the cold storage. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner supported this method, considering it appropriate for determining the value of a commercial unit like a cold storage. This method was affirmed with modifications by the Tribunal, which included considering the book value of assets and excluding the separate addition of capital in the firm.

However, the High Court found that the authorities below failed to consider Section 7(2)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, which mandates that the net value of the assets of the business should be determined with regard to the balance-sheet and necessary adjustments. The Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) did not adhere to this mode and instead valued the cold storage based on the land and building method. The High Court cited various precedents, including *CWT v. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd.* and *Birla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CWT*, emphasizing that the balance-sheet should be the primary basis of valuation, with adjustments made for "acceptable reasons."

The High Court concluded that the land and building method, as adopted by the WTO, was the appropriate method for valuing the cold storage. The Tribunal's reliance on *CIT v. Kanodia Cold Storage* was misplaced as it did not address the valuation method directly. The High Court reframed the question of law and answered it in the negative, favoring the Revenue and against the assessee.

2. Consideration of Book Value of Assets and Exclusion of Separate Addition of Capital in the Firm:

The Tribunal held that in determining the average profit of the three years, the book value of the assets should be considered, and the capital in the firm should not be added back separately. This decision was based on the principle that the plant and machinery, as part of the business assets, should not be separately valued.

The High Court, however, emphasized that the figures in the balance-sheet should be taken at face value unless the assessee provides acceptable reasons for adjustments. The balance-sheet gives a true and fair view of the state of affairs, and any adjustments should be justified by the circumstances of the case.

The High Court noted that the appellate authorities did not provide any substantial reason for disagreeing with the WTO's method of valuation. The Tribunal's modifications were not supported by recognized methods of valuation, and the High Court found that the land and building method was more appropriate for determining the value of the cold storage.

Conclusion:

The High Court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in adopting the income capitalization method for valuing the cold storage. The appropriate method was the land and building method as adopted by the WTO. The reframed question of law was answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, with no order as to costs.