2015 (4) TMI 61 - HC - Wealth-tax

Valuation of property - Whether the Tribunal is correct in concluding that the value of the lease hold right in the property under consideration was correctly brought into the computation of net wealth as per provisions of Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 for the assessment year under consideration - Held that - it is clear that none of the exceptions as enumerated in Section 40 (3) (vi) are attracted to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the building has been leased out to Central Bank of India for which rent is being collected by the assessee/appellant. It therefore follows that by virtue of Section 40 (1) read with Sections 40 (2) and (3) of the Act, the building constructed by the appellant would fall within the definition of specified asset for the purpose of determining the net wealth of the assessee liable to wealth tax. It is of no avail on the part of the assessee to plead that a commercial activity conducted in the premises would fall outside the purview of wealth tax, because, as stated above, the assessee in this case does not fall within any of the exceptions provided under Section 40 (3) (vi) for availing the benefit. Such being the case, the building as such, constructed on a leasehold property, would be termed as an asset in terms of Section 40 (3) and, therefore, the net wealth of the company has to be determined in terms of Section 40 (2) of the Act for the purpose of levy of wealth tax under Section 40 (1). Assessee/appellant herein has leased out the property to the lessee for running banking business, which is not the business activity of the assessee/appellant. Therefore, as held by the Full Bench, assessee/appellant does not fall within the exclusionary clause mentioned in section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983, and, thereby, the assessee is liable to be taxed on the value of the tenanted portion of the building under Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983. The abovesaid Full Bench decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, following the Full Bench decision in Fagun s case (2006 (9) TMI 118 - MADRAS High Court), the 1st substantial question of law is answered against the assessee/appellant and in favour of the Revenue/respondent. Whether the Tribunal is correct in concluding that assessibility of the said right in the property under consideration at ₹ 82 Lakhs in the computation of net wealth even though rights in the property had vested with Central Bank of India in terms of sub-lease agreement - Held that - department has taken into consideration the value of the building alone, constructed by the assessee, for the purpose of computation of the net wealth and not the value of the land. However, in the order it has been stated that for the purpose of computation of the value for land and building, the value of the building alone is taken as a composite value. However, no appeal has been filed by the Department challenging that portion of the order of the Tribunal. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the value adopted by the Tribunal at ₹ 82 Lakhs for the purpose of computation of net wealth is just and proper and calls for no interference, as the value of the building alone is taken as composite value for the purpose of computation of the value of the land and building. Accordingly, in view of the above, the 2nd substantial question of law is also answered against the assessee/appellant and in favour of the Revenue/respondent. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in concluding that the value of the leasehold right in the property was correctly included in the computation of net wealth as per Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983?
2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in concluding that the assessability of the said right in the property at Rs. 82 Lakhs in the computation of net wealth is valid even though rights in the property had vested with Central Bank of India in terms of the sub-lease agreement?

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of Leasehold Right in Net Wealth:
The primary issue is whether the leasehold right in the property should be included in the computation of net wealth under Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983. The assessee had entered into a 99-year lease agreement and constructed a building on the leased land, which was then sub-leased to the Central Bank of India. The assessee argued that the leasehold right in the land and building should not be subject to wealth tax. However, the Tribunal concluded that a 99-year lease is equivalent to ownership and that leasehold rights are an interest in immovable property with value. The Tribunal further stated that receiving rental income implies constructive occupation by the assessee, thus including the leasehold right in the taxable wealth. The Court upheld this view, emphasizing that Section 40(3)(vi) specifies the inclusion of buildings or land appurtenant thereto in net wealth unless used for specific exempt purposes, none of which applied in this case. The Court referenced the Full Bench decision in Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs Fagun Co. P. Ltd., which clarified that assets not falling within the specified exemptions are liable for wealth tax. Therefore, the first substantial question of law was answered against the assessee.

2. Valuation of the Property at Rs. 82 Lakhs:
The second issue concerns the valuation of the property at Rs. 82 Lakhs for wealth tax purposes, despite the sub-lease agreement with the Central Bank of India. The Tribunal had accepted the value of the building alone at Rs. 82 Lakhs, considering it reasonable. The Court noted that the Department only considered the building's value for net wealth computation, not the land's value. Since the Department did not challenge this valuation, the Court found the Tribunal's valuation just and proper. The second substantial question of law was also answered against the assessee, affirming the valuation adopted by the Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was confirmed. The Court held that the leasehold right in the property is includible in the net wealth under Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983, and the valuation of the property at Rs. 82 Lakhs was appropriate. There was no order as to costs.