Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1986 (5) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Act. In the assessment the value of the land and the building at Manikbagh, Indore, which was a self-occupied property of the assessee was assessed as opted by the assessee under section 7(4) of the Act at a figure of Rs. 3,27,968. Reference to the notice of the Commissioner (Appeals) had a doubt as to whether the value of structures such as guard room and the land appurtenant to the self-occupied building as valued by the departmental valuer was incorrectly exempted in the wealth-tax assessment. He then referred to page 19 where under section 25(2) of the Act the Commissioner had issued notice for the assessment year 1976-77 in respect of the same property in which year also the WTO had allowed to the assessee the option under sect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... igure of Rs. 7 lakhs. The Commissioner has also drawn attention to the fact that on identical grounds when the issued was raised for the assessment year 1976-77 in which year also there was a valuation by the departmental valuer the proceedings were dropped but instead of dropping the proceedings, observed in his order that each assessment is separate and that there is no bar in taking a different view from the one already taken. He, therefore, set aside the orders of the WTO and directed him to decide as to whether the value of the structures like guard room and the land appurtenant and the land which is not appurtenant to the self-occupied building is to be included in the taxable wealth or not. Mr. Mehta's argument was that the Commissio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ence in valuation of the property as shown by the assessee and as valued by the departmental valuer. It is not the case of the Commissioner that the guard room was constructed during the financial year ending on the valuation date of 31-3-1977. It is also not denied that the guard room as well as the extra land was existing even in the assessment year 1976-77. It is also not denied that the extra land has not been put into any other use but used by the assessee herself. The question, therefore, that needs to be considered is whether notwithstanding the fact that a reference was made to the Valuation Officer under section 16A of the Act if the assessee has opted for the applicability of section 7(4) can the WTO refuse to grant the exercise o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n - (i) Where the house has been constructed by the assessee, he shall be deemed to have become the owner therefore on the date on which the construction of such house was completed; (ii) 'house' includes a part of a house, being an independent residential unit." A reading of the above two sub-sections goes to indicate that the Valuation Officer while estimating the value of the property should estimate it by reference to sub-section (4) on the valuation date referred to in that sub-section. This further goes to clarify that once a property, namely, a house, which is used by him for his self-residence exclusively and throughout the 12 months' period, the value of such house shall have to be taken at the option of the assessee, the value .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... refore, of the view that the Commissioner has not been able to establish any error which is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue in the order of the WTO. It would be the paramount duty of the Commissioner while invoking his powers under section 25(2) to bring on record the error that has been committed and further explain the extent of prejudice that has been caused to the interest of the revenue. In the instant case, as already explained above, there was no error in the order of the WTO in allowing the assessee for adoption of section 7(4) and freezing the value of the property as was purchased to the extent of cost added to the purchase value. When there is no error, there can be no prejudice caused to the revenue. 5. For the abov .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates