9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cinema building was only 46,391 sq. yd. and the surplus land measuring 22,358 sq. yd. was not for use of the cinema and that the assessee was at liberty to use the same for any purpose. He took such a view after having followed the report of the valuation cell. The surplus land and the cinema were separately valued by the valuation cell for both the years. The Valuation Officer valued the cinema building and the surplus land at Rs. 16,56,000 for the asst. yr. 1973-74 and at Rs. 17,55,000 for the asst. yr. 1975-76. The same value was accepted by the WTO. The approved valuer of the assessee showed the value of the entire property, meaning thereby, the cinema and the land at Rs. 8,23,000. On appeal the CIT (Appeals) concurred with the WTO that there was surplus land and that was to be valued separately. So far as the valued of the cinema building and the land appurtenant thereto is concerned, the CIT (Appeals) adopted the value at Rs. 8,23,000, meaning thereby, the same as shown by the approved valuer of the assessee. He took the view that land measuring 22,358 sq. yd. is surplus land. He applied the rate of Rs. 25 per sq. yd. to such land as on 31st Mar, 1973 and the rate of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5; (ii) AIR 1964 Orissa 112; (iii) AIR 1966 MP 270, they were not considered by the Tribunal as they were not placed before it. Shri Swaroop says that all these authorities ruled down that potentiality of the land has to be considered and that any authority would consider the potentiality of the land though it might be used for some other purposes by the owner of the land. (3) It is said that the Tribunal omitted to consider an important circumstance that no cinema for its operation would require a piece of land as big as 31,749 sq. yd. (4) Shri Swaroop says that in the proforma filed in by the assessee which was given to the valuation cell, it was admitted that the land appurtenant to the cinema was only 10,000 sq. yd. and that such admission of the assessee was not considered by the Tribunal. (5) The last submission of Shri Swaroop is that the Urban Improvement Trust, Kota constructed a road across the land of the assessee that after the construction of such road which divided the land of the assessee, the cinema business continued as it was and no obstruction was caused to it by the division of the land by way road construction. The argument of Shri Swaroop is that it goes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y point in the submission of Shri Ranka. For the asst. yr. 1974-75, the assessee himself showed the value at Rs. 3,77,000. It shows that there was substantial appreciation in the value of the building every year. Considering the appreciation in the value of the building, we hold that the WTO rightly valued this property at Rs. 3,42,000 for the asst. yr. 1973-74. 6. Then comes the dispute of valuation with regard to the property known as Mohan Kutir. Admittedly this building was constructed on the land which was given by the Municipal Board, Kota to the predecessor-in-title of the assessee. The assessee showed the value of Mohan Kutir for the asst. yr. 1973-74 to 1975-76 at Rs. 2,16,000 each. For the asst. yr. 1974-75, the Tribunal vide order dt. 28th Jan., 1980 in the case of the assessee accepted the valuation shown at Rs. 2,16,000. The WTO, however, took the value at Rs. 2,49,200 for the asst. yr. 1973-74 and at Rs. 2,82,100 for the asst. yr. 1975-76. The CIT (Appeals) confirmed the order of the WTO in this regard. The argument of Shri Ranka in two-fold. The first argument is that the Tribunal having accepted the declared value of Rs. 2,16,000 for the asst. yr. 1974-75, the CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus more than one previous years in the case of the assessee. Referring to sub-cl. (1) of proviso to cl. (a) of s. 2 of the WT Act, 1957, Shri Ranka says that the previous year of the assessee would be the one ended on 31st May, 1973 and therefore, the value of Brij Talkies of M/s, National Motors Workshop could not be included in the wealth-tax assessment year, as the valuation date for the asst. yr. 1973-74 ended on 31st Mar, 1973. We are impressed by this argument. If this argument is accepted no doubt the value of the Brij Talkies will have to be excluded from the assessment of the assessee but the assessee himself disclosed the value of the Brij Talkies for the asst. yr. 1973-74. So the conduct of the assessee itself goes to show that he took the view that the value of the Brij Talkies was required to be disclosed for the asst. yr. 1973-74. We, therefore, do not agree with the assessee that the value of the Brij Talkies and M/s. National Motor Workshop deserved to be excluded from the assessment of the assessee. 8. Then the last contention of the assessee in his appeals is that the WTO was not right in levying the additional wealth-tax on two assets, namely, Brij Talkies and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 respectively, has to be straight away excluded. 11. The only question for consideration in the appeals of the revenue is as to what was the value of the Brij Talkies on the relevant valuation dates for the asst. yrs. 1973-74 1975-76. The assessee disclosed the value of the cinema and the whole land at Rs. 4,77,189 and at Rs. 8,23,000 respectively. The Valuation Officer whose report was accepted by the WTO valued the surplus land at Rs. 7,87,750 and Rs. 10,12,500 for these years respectively and he valued the remaining property at Rs. 8,66,644 for the asst. yr. 1973-74 and at Rs. 7,42,442 for the asst. yr. 1975-76. The WTO valued the cinema and the surplus land at Rs. 16,50,000 and at Rs. 17,55,000 for the years under appeal respectively. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) took the net value of the cinema building at Rs. 8,23,000 each for both the years and valued the surplus land separately at Rs. 5,00,000 for the asst. yr. 1973-74 and at Rs. 6,00,000, for the asst. yr. 1975-76 and thus valued the cinema building and the surplus land at Rs. 13,23,000 (Rs. 8,23,000 + 5,00,000) for the asst. yr. 1973-74 and at Rs. 14,23,000 Rs. 8,23,000 + Rs. 6,00,000) for the asst. yr. 1975-76. As t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
