9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1974 (8) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty, the other half being owned by his brother, A. N. Bose. It is recorded in the order of the Tribunal that the property had not been partitioned between the co-owners. The property was let out on lease for 15 years with effect from the 1st of August, 1950, to the 31st July, 1965, to India Automobiles on a monthly rent of Rs. 7,500. It is stated that there was an option for a further term of five years. According to the terms of the lease the lessors were entitled to receive Rs. 90,000 per annum inclusive of municipal taxes amounting to Rs. 4,878.16 per annum, There was an option for renewal of the lease. In the wealth-tax returns for the aforesaid years the assessee had shown the valuation of the property as representing his half share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration the Tribunal had arrived at the figure mentioned hereinbefore. In their report, Messrs. Talbot & Company had given the location of the property and had mentioned about the basis in which they had indicated in respect of two sales, one being a sale dated the 31st August, 1960, regarding 5/6ths share of Ezra Mansion for Rs. 5,00,000 with IV-storeyed blocks of buildings having frontages on Old Court House Street, Waterloo Street and Dacres Lane, land area about 44 kottahs yielding a total monthly rent of Rs. 8,000 and the other which was a sale dated(?) August, 1960, regarding 5/6ths share of Chowringhee Mansion for Rs. 11,470.58, land area 84 kottahs with IV-storeyed blocks of buildings having frontages on Park Street, Chowringhee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the land and buildings came to Rs. 5,34,000. If this figure was substituted for Rs. 6,79,980, the value of the land and buildings would be reduced by Rs. 1,45,980. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, therefore, gave relief to the assessee by reducing the multiplying factor from 20 to 16 and reduced the value by Rs. 1,45,980. Against the aforesaid order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner both the assessee and the department preferred appeals before the Tribunal. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the value as shown by the assessee should be accepted while the department contended that the valuation as taken by the Wealth-tax Officer should be restored. The assessee placed reliance on the previous order of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the property ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in the consideration of : (a) the undivided character of the share in the property, (b) the previous decision of the Tribunal Bench B, Calcutta, for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 and its applicability to the facts of this case ? and 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misinterpreted the chance of the property being got back in valuing the same for the purpose of the Wealth-tax Act ?" The purpose of valuation of a property of this nature under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is to find out the market price likely to be fetched on the valuation date in respect of the property by a hypo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... must be an intelligent one based on certain objective factors which have a rational nexus with the valuation. (c) There are different methods--and which one would be suitable for a particular property must depend upon the particular features of the property ; of these methods the one should be preferred which can provide more objective data for reliance. Bearing the aforesaid principles we must consider the facts of this case. The Tribunal in its previous order dated the 14th August, 1961, in respect of the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 had proceeded on a certain basis to which we have referred hereinbefore. The Tribunal had accepted the basis of valuation made by Messrs. Talbot and Company and had relied on certain transactions mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s an option of renewal of lease. Having regard to the nature of the lease, having regard also to the fact that there was no evidence that there was any diminution of business of the lessee or desire on the part of the lessee to give up the property or not to carry on business which was being carried on in the said premises and having regard to the fact that there was no evidence of availability of such premises by the lessee on more or less the same price which would have induced the lessee not to exercise the option, it would be wrong to take into consideration solely the fact that the lease was coming to an end without taking into consideration all the other relevant factors. It has further to be borne in mind as was contended by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
