9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be any embargo on the Wealth Tax Officer not to take into consideration valuation of identical assets immediately preceding or succeeding the valuation date or that he has to arrive at the valuation of the asset only as per the valuation report. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S. N. Wadiyar [ 2015 (9) TMI 1065 - SUPREME COURT] is not on the proposition that valuation of an identical asset immediately succeeding the valuation date cannot be taken into consideration for determining the valuation of the asset as on the valuation date - in said judgment, it is stated that valuation of the asset has to be on the valuation date which has reference to the last day of the previous year. In other words, it is 31st March and immediately preceding the assessment year. The valuation of the asset arrived at as on that date is the valuation on which wealth tax is assessable. Clarifying the matter further Supreme Court held that the Wealth Tax Officer has to form an opinion about the estimated price if the assets were to be sold in the assumed market and the estimated price would be the one which an assumed willing purchaser would pay for it. No error or infirmity in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference in the value of the said property amounting to ₹ 3,01,86,509.00 was added to the net wealth of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the above, assessee preferred Appeal before the first appellate authority i.e. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVIII, Bombay. By the appellate order dated 20.10.1997, the first appellate authority held that the Wealth Tax Officer had taken the correct market value and, therefore, the valuation was upheld. Accordingly, the Appeal was dismissed. 7. In further appeal by the assessee before Tribunal, Tribunal elaborately examined various aspects and vide order dated 16.08.2001 opined that the Wealth Tax Officer had rightly assessed the value of the property in the hands of the assessee and that no interference was called for in the order of the first appellate authority. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 8. Hence, the present Appeal before us. 9. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the crucial date for valuation of the property is the valuation date, as defined under section 2(q) of the Act. For arriving at the proper valuation as on the valuation date, the Wealth Tax Officer cannot take into consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bject to sub-section (2), the value of any asset other than cash shall be its value as on the valuation date, determined in the manner laid down in Schedule III. Sub-section (2) deals with valuation of the house belonging to the assessee, which is exclusively used by him for residential purposes for a period of 12 months immediately preceding the valuation report. 14.1. That brings us to Schedule III of the Act. Schedule III provides for Rules for determining the value of assets. Part (H) forms the residuary provisions. Rule 20 forms part of the residuary provisions which deals with valuation of assets in cases not covered by Rules 3 to 19. It says that value of any asset, other than cash and not covered by the aforesaid Rules, shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Assessing Officer would be fetched on its own if sold in the open market on the valuation date. 15. Therefore, the requirement of Rule 20(1) is that value of any asset, other than cash, shall be estimated to be the price which, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. Rule 21 clarifies that while determining the market value, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by such officer would not lead to a justifiable proper result. The ratio laid down in the decision of Jaswantrai (supra) and Rajendra Kumar Agarwal (supra) as referred by revenue are also relied upon. We have also taken into account the case law of Suumben Jhaveri (supra) as quoted by ld. A.R. and found that the facts were not identical, moreover the ratio laid down in that case also supports our view that the property had to be valued as on date a particular day on the basis of hypothetical sale and prevailing circumstances which definitely is a logical and judicial approach. In view of the reasons recorded in the aforesaid paras and under the totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the W.T.O. has rightly assessed the value of the impugned property in the hands of the assessee and no interference is required in the order of the first appellate authority. 21. Thus, Tribunal observed that there could not have been a better guide for the Wealth Tax Officer for adopting the market value of the property in question than the actual sale itself which occurred within a few months from the relevant date of the valuation. 22. Insofar the present case is concerned t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
