2013 (7) TMI 558 - AT - Wealth-tax

Valuation of land - Assessing Officer made the valuation by increasing the 10% appreciation - CIT deleted same - Held that - assets being business assets, its value was to be determined as per Rule 14 and not as per Rule 20 of Schedule III - It is only if any condition under Rule 8 is satisfied, that the assessing authority could have referred to and determine the value under Rule 20 - Following decision of M/s Sahara India Savings and Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2010 (9) TMI 824 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in the valuation of land for wealth tax assessment years.
2. Interpretation of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act for valuation of assets.

Issue 1: Discrepancy in Valuation of Land
The Wealth Tax Appeals by the Revenue challenged the orders of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) regarding the valuation of land for assessment years. The main contention was the difference in the value of land as per the assessee's books of account and the value adopted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had increased the value of the land year to year, leading to discrepancies in the valuation for different assessment years.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act
The core issue revolved around the interpretation of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act for valuing assets, particularly immovable properties like land. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to consider the value of land as per the books of accounts, citing Rule 14 of Schedule III. The contention was whether the value should be determined based on the book value or fair market value for wealth tax purposes.

The ITAT referred to previous decisions related to similar issues, notably the case of M/s Sahara India Savings & Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT, which clarified that the value of immovable properties used for business should be determined as per Rule 14 of Schedule III, not Rule 20. The Tribunal and the High Court concurred that the assets' value should align with the book value as declared by the assessee, especially when no depreciation was admissible.

Ultimately, the ITAT upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) based on the precedents and interpretations of Schedule III, dismissing all three Wealth Tax Appeals filed by the Revenue.

This judgment highlights the importance of following the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, specifically Schedule III, for the valuation of assets like land and the significance of considering the book value for determining wealth tax liabilities.