9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Davis Road, Richard s Town, Bangalore. The value adopted by the Assessing Officer on the respective valuation dates are challenged as illegal. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the Assessing Officer and valuation Officer have ignored the fundamental basic facts that the assessee s title to the property is under litigation from 1988, when a suit was first filed by the Bangalore City Corporation authorities against the vendor Shri Hanumantha Rao who sold the subject property to the assessee. Additionally the vendor also perhaps to protect his interest, filed a suit against the assessee questioning the validity of the sale. The Assessing Officer and the Valuation Officer knows pretty well that the property which was purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ily estimated the value of the property as under. As on 31-3-1986 at Rs. 1,120 sq. mt. As on 31-3-1987 at Rs. 1,630 sq. mt. As on 31-3-1988 at Rs. 2,140 sq. mt. The Departmental Valuation Officer failed to quote any sale instances during the material period the valuation officer has not even based his valuation of the sale instances quoted by him vindicatively enhanced the rate for in excess of the rates shown in the comparable rates adopted by him. The valuation officer should not have adopted the rate of Rs. 1,120 and Rs. 1,630 per sq. mt. to fix the value as on 31-3-1986 and 31-3-1987 as against Rs. 813.49 sq. mt. noticed by him as on 30-5-1985, without adequate supporting evidence. Similarly the adoption of rate at Rs. 2,140 sq. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evident from the valuation report filed by the revenue dated 6-1-2000, wherein under para 3.1 it has been observed as under : "The assessee acquired the portion of the property of vacant plot bearing municipal corporation No. 2 (old No. I-A) measuring east to west 78'-0" and north to south 60'-0" facing Davis Road through a registered sale deed dated 4-12-1969 vide registered No. 2734/69-90 in Book I volume pages 190-194 in the office of the Sub-registrar, Shivajinagar for a consideration of amounting to Rs. 20,000 as such the assessee is the absolute owner of the plot as per sale deed. Subsequently, the property is in litigation between the seller N. Hanumantha Rao and assessee Shri G. Ramaiya Reddy during 1990, Shri N. Hanumantha Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the plaint that even though the sale deed was registered on 2-4-1969, he did not handover possession to the assessee for more than 12 years besides other averments (copy enclosed). The valuation officer was also told that the Katha of the impugned property stands in the name of vendor from 22-10-1969 and it was not transferred to the name of assessee till date. The property tax is being paid by the vendor. The Valuation Officer considered this fact, a most depressing factor in his report dated 30-11-1999. He has observed at para 3.1 that the property was under dispute till the date of his report. He had also observed that the site remained vacant event though it was in a developed area. The Assessing Officer acting on the valuation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a spate of suits and counter suits culminating in the present petition dated 7-3-2000 by the legal heir of vendor in the court of Civil Judge, Bangalore. The CIT(A) did not appreciate all the above facts. Instead he held that he was not bothered about the endless litigation between the vendor and the Bangalore City Corporation. The CIT(A) ignored the fact that the Katha was not transferred to the assessee from 1969 even now as on date the Katha has not been transferred in the name of the assessee. Another significant fact is the very admission in the suit of 2000 that possession of the impugned property was never given to the assessee. The assessee due to several constrains could not develop the property since last 35 years taking advanta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itigations in respect of the property would certainly a depressing factor, which will definitely interfere with, not only the market value but also marketability of the property in question. The assessee can neither sell the property nor construct any superstructure, in view of the fact that the City Corporation had filed suit against the vendor. It is pertinent to note that for construction of building, the plan has to be sanctioned by the authorities like B.D.A. and B.M.C. and these organizations are the litigants over the property in question. All these facts cannot be ignored while determining the market value of the property. The learned counsel before us challenged the arbitrary rate determined by the Assessing Officer for all the 3 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
