9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt years are 1974-75 to 1977-78. The assessee owned a bungalow with an open area of land in the Shahibaug locality of the city of Ahmedabad. The said asset was valued at Rs. 1,43,375 for the assessment year 1974-75, as per the report of a registered valuer, who had estimated the value at Rs. 35 per square yard and since the land was encumbered with a building, the effective value thereof was taken at 60 per cent. of the said value of the land. The Wealth-tax Officer accepted the valuation report and completed the assessment for the assessment year 1974-75. On the same basis, he completed the assessments for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat II, Ahmedabad, invoking his revisional pow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not exceed the minimum land required to be left open according to the municipal bye-laws in force in the area, no portion of the vacant land can be regarded as not being a part of the house itself or appurtenant to the house and where the open land exceeds the limit specified in the municipal byelaws, but if a separate tenantable unit cannot be constructed thereon, even such land was to be considered as a part of the house appurtenant thereto. However, in cases where a separate tenantable unit could be constructed on such excess land, such land can be considered as not appurtenant to the house and the matter regarding its valuation may be referred to the valuation cell. The Commissioner observed that in view of the clear instructions of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Tribunal, it did not find it necessary to go into the question as to whether the Commissioner in exercise of his powers under section 25(2) of the said Act can substitute the opinion of the Wealth-tax Officer under section 16A(1) of the said Act, especially when the said provision gives discretion to the Wealth-tax Officer in respect of making of a reference to the Valuation Officer. The Tribunal, however, observed that it was not quite sure whether the guidelines given for valuation of the land in the Board's circular could be accepted as correct. Section 25(2) of the Act empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceeding under the Act and on such examination if he considers that any order passed therein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was required to be examined while considering the value of the asset. The question whether a large portion of land can be separately developed without affecting the owner's right to retain the house would have a bearing on the question of the value of the asset. Therefore, when the Commissioner noted that the relevant aspects were not gone into by the Wealth-tax Officer and he set aside the order of the Wealth tax Officer directing him to refer the question of valuation to the Valuation Officer, it can never be said that the Commissioner had committed any error in exercise of his powers which could have warranted interference by the Tribunal. The Commissioner, in our opinion, was perfectly justified in giving a direction to the Wealth-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
