9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax erred in not appreciating fact that the valuation of the property which is subject to an Agreement of Sale cannot be clone de-hors the Agreement of Sale, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax erred in not appreciating fact that even it is assumed that the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan v. CWT [1986] 162 ITR 888 is applicable, the market value of the property cannot at more than Rs. 8,00,000 in view of the Agreement of Safe entered into the appellant, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax erred in not appreciating fact that the Wealth-tax Officer was not correct determining the fair market value of property at Rs. 33,64,000, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 6 ......." 3. We heard both sides in detail. The assessee owned property bearing No. 4/117 to 118 situated at Ramananthapur, Hyderabad. The value of this property was declared at cost at Rs. 1,19,500. It was a self-occupied house property. Exemption was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer adopted the value as determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer, and included the same while computing the taxable wealth of the assessee for the three years under appeal. 5. When the matter was taken in first appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) also concurred with the view of the Assessing Officer, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan. Hence, assessee preferred these appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), before this Tribunal. 6. We heard Shri M. Fakruddin, the learned Chartered Accountant for the assessee and Shri J. Albert, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. The learned C.A. for the assessee submitted that even though technically the deed of conveyance was not registered on the valuation dates involved in these matters, full consideration was received by, the assessee, and possession and enjoyment of the property was handed over, and therefore, the buyer has become the de facto owner of the property, and this fact has to be considered for wealth-tax assessment purposes also. If it is so considered, he submitted that the property has to be excluded fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all aspects of the matter in detail, in the light of the contentions of the parties. There are two issues to be considered in these appeals. The first issue is whether the assessee was the owner of the property and as such accountable to wealth-tax liability on the relevant valuation dates involved in these appeals with regard to the said property. The second issue is if she is held to be the owner accountable to wealth-tax, what should be the value for the property to be adopted for wealth-tax assessment. In first appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) considered only the first issue and held that the property belonged to the assessee and she was answerable to the call of the Wealth-tax Act with regard to the property. For this conclusion, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan . But, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone beyond and he has not considered the second issue. Therefore, to that extent, we have to interfere and disturb the order of the first appellate authority. 9. As the matter is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan's case, we also hold that the legal owner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over and above the consideration declared in the document. Therefore, the consideration obviously cannot go beyond that. So, the market value of the property in question could be adopted for the purposes of assessment for the years under appeal at Rs. 8 lakhs. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in its decision in the matter of Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan has endorsed this legal position in the following words --- "Under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, where possession has been handed over to the purchasers and the purchasers are in rightful possession of the same as against the assessee and in occupation of the property in question and, secondly, the entire consideration has been paid and, thirdly, the purchasers were entitled to resist eviction from the property by the assessee in whose favour the legal title vested because conveyance has not yet been executed by him and when the purchasers in possession had a right to call upon the assessee to execute the conveyance, it cannot (sic) be said that the property legally belonged to the assessee in terms of section 2(m) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case, even though the statute must be rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
