9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Shamim Yahya,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sh. J. J. Mehrotra, CA Sh. Dinesh Verma, Advocate For the Respondent : Sh. Tarun Seem, Sr. D.R. ORDER Per Bench These Wealth Tax Appeals by the Revenue are directed against the respective orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) for the concerned assessment years. Since the appeals were heard together, these appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The ground raised in WTA NO. 6/Del/2012 reads as under:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CWT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to take the value of land at Rs. 31,93,297/- as shown by the assessee in his books of account as against Rs. 1,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly, following the said assessment order for A.Y. 2004-05 the value of land under consideration was worked out at Rs. 1,36,79,945/-. 7. For Assessment year 2007-08 the Assessing Officer adopted the value of land after increasing the value by 10% appreciation on the value taken by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2006-07. 8. For assessment year 2008-09, the Assessing Officer made the valuation by increasing the 10% appreciation on the value adopted by the Assessing Officer for the Asstt. year 2007-08. 9. Before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) assessee relied upon the decision of M/s Sahara India Savings Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT, A.Yrs. 1991-92 to 1993-94, WTA Nos. 1 2 of 1998 and 1999 respectively d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while determining the value of immovable properties, has adopted the rates as declared in the valuation report furnished by the assessee itself and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in determining the value by exercising his powers under Rule 20 of Schedule III to the Wealth Tax Act and the CWT(A) was not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to take the value of immovable property as returned by the assessee. The counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, first of all pointed out that the valuation report relied on by the Assessing Officer was for assessment year 1994-95 as has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer at page 3 of the assessment order itself and, therefore, that report was not relevant for determining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... immovable property, as business asset of the assessee has to be taken in accordance with the Rule 3 in Schedule III appended to the Wealth Tax Act. It is only if any condition under Rule 8 is satisfied, that the assessing authority could have referred to and determine the value under Rule 20. The provisions of Rule 14(2)(b) are not applicable to the present case as no depreciation is admissible to the asset being immovable property as shown in the account books of the assessee with a definite value." 14. In light of the above decisions, we are of the considered opinion, the issue involved in these cases are squarely covered by them. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
