9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -------------- Assessment Cost inflation Value as Assessed year index per index value ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Rs.) (Rs.) 1982-83 100 25,67,265 1,50,000 1983-84 109 27,98,318 -do- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon furnishing of all due particulars by the assessee. In several years, there were appeals. So far as the assessment years 1982-83 to 1984-85 and 1987-88 are concerned, those were concluded under section 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and four years have run from such assessment. The figures of assessed value at the first level as well as upon appeal are set out by the assessee in the following chart form in his affidavit-in-reply : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assessment Estimated value Value assessed by the Value as per appellate year as per return Wealth-tax Officer notice order -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Rs.) &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; 13,50,000 1990-91 10,00,000 15,00,000 15,00,000 1991-92 15,00,000 15,00,000 No appeal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The point in issue in this matter is the result of the application of the Cost Inflation Index by the Wealth-tax Officer for the purpose of his coming to the conclusion that wealth has escaped assessment by reason of assessment being made at too low a rate. I need not enter into the special issue of four years having run in respect of four assessment years and the disclosures by the assessee-writ petitioner being in no manner incomplete or untrue. I need not enter into this issue of limitation in regard to four years because, in m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od would lead to unfairness and glaring financial fallacies. Land does not necessarily appreciate in the same manner as does the price index of urban non-manual employees. The two items are ordinarily quite separate. To apply the Consumer Price Index in a reversed manner for computing the value of the land of earlier years and to reopen wealth-tax assessments on that basis is proceeding irrationally and on the basis of a totally extraneous factor. Application of the Cost Inflation Index in such a reversed manner for the computation of land value is arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of the mandates of article 14 of the Constitution of India. On behalf of the petitioner, a decision of the Karnataka High Court in CWT v. S. P. C. Murthy [1991] 191 ITR 189 was relied upon. In that decision, the value of property was held to be subject to various factors for change in their value. Indeed, that is true for Bangalore (which was the city discussed in that case) and it is equally true for any other city. A host of factors might cause land value to drop or to rise. A mechanical application of the Cost Inflation Index as declared for capital gains tax in this context would be thorough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
