9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no express power of review and therefore the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. We are further of the view that the Tribunal should have made efforts to reconcile paragraphs 2.7 and 2.9 figuring in the order dated October 21, 1998, instead of writing a perfunctory order. We wish that the Tribunal should have applied its mind closely to the whole controversy and had creased out paragraphs 2.7 and 2.9 in the order dated October 21, 1998. - Matter remanded back to tribunal. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e determined as on March 31, 1971, and its value may be frozen in terms of section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act. He has referred to the order of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, whereby it held that the multiplier should have been the age of the building divided by the life of the building in terms of number of years and directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on the said basis and work out the value of the property as on March 31, 1970 in respect of different portions, mentioned in the report. It is observed that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) has already held that the tubewell should be treated as a part of the residential house and its value be frozen as on April 1, 1971. Similarly, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) has directed that the boundary wall be treated as a part of the residential house and its value be frozen as on April 1, 1971. He has thus accepted in principle that value of certain assets which formed part of the residential house should be frozen as on April 1, 1971. The Department is not in appeal on this issue. Thus, having regard to the provisions of section 7(4), whereunder the value of a house belonging to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eement to the view-point of the Valuation Officer with reference to classification of land into categories 4 and 5. It is observed that in paragraph 2 of the said letter, it has been mentioned that the bifurcation between first two categories is imaginary and is not supported by any law. However, this matter has finally been settled at the time of discussion held by the undersigned with you in the presence of Sh. B. S. Dahia, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Central Range, Ludhiana, in the office of the Income-tax Officer, CC, Patiala. As regards commercial land, the same has already been sold and the assessee possesses only one plot measuring 577 sq. yds. The said letter has been written to the Valuation Officer on behalf of learned counsel and Sh. Jagmohan Singh. We feel that the reasoning given by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) for classification of land into different categories, area of land and valuation of land is not only based on the aforesaid letter but is otherwise fair and reasonable and his orders do not call for any interference. Apart from the reasons given by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), which have been upheld by us, the aforesaid letter on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cations moved by the assessee are allowed and the orders passed in the abovementioned appeals, are hereby recalled for a limited purpose of determining the valuation of land appurtenant to the residential house in question." It is, thus, evident that the Tribunal recalled the order dated October 21, 1998 (P-3) for a limited purpose of determining the valuation of land appurtenant to the residential house in question. When the appeals were listed for hearing, the same Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated February 4, 2003 concluded that there was no contradiction in the findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraphs 2.7 and 2.9 of the order dated October 21, 1998. The view of the Tribunal is discernible from a perusal of paragraph 5.1, which reads as under : "We have also observed that the issue raised before the Tribunal not only related to the value of residential house but also to the value of land. The total area covered by Leela Bhawan was 52,100 sq. yds. While valuing the residential house, the Valuation Officer had also allowed rebate at 20 per cent. of the total area on account of providing road, pathways, etc., which required to be frozen as on April 1, 1971. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sold in subsequent years. The aforesaid land was valued at different rates. However, the learned State counsel has not been able to clarify and explain the apparent contradiction in paragraph 2.7 which clearly states that the value of the residential house and land appurtenant to it was to be made as per the provisions of section 7(4) of the Act. Whereas in paragraph 2.9, the Tribunal has asked for the classification of the land into two different categories. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Tribunal has not proceeded on a sound reasoning. It amounts to blowing hot and cold in the same breath. It has come on record in the order dated February 1, 2002 (P-4) that in paragraph 2.7 and paragraph 2.9, there are mutual contradictions which were required to be reconciled. The aforesaid contradictions were pointed out at the instance of the assessee when he filed miscellaneous petitions. However, when the main appeals were taken up, the Tribunal recorded a finding that there was, in fact, no contradiction which would be evident from the perusal of paragraph 5.1. The Tribunal has recorded "we do not find any merit in the submissions of the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
