9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... net wealth on 28-9-1984 in which value of the open land at Old Padra Road, was shown at Rs. 62,538. As the A.O. was of the opinion that valuation given by the assessee-company was shown at the same price at which the said land was acquired as early as in 1960, he referred the matter to the D.V.O. under section 16A of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for assessing the fair market value of the said open land along with other properties of the assessee-company. Shri S.K. Chaudhari, Valuation Officer submitted his report dated 10-3-1989 which was served upon the assessee and it appears that assessee got another Govt. Registered Valuer's report on 16-3-1989 and on the basis of that filed revised return of wealth showing the value of the open land in question at Rs. 1,44,146, The Assessing Officer considered the reports of both the valuers and contention of the assessee that land in question was subject-matter of Urban Land (Ceiling Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ULC Act) and its value should be at the rate of compensation to be awarded to the company by the Government under the provisions of the Act and valuation as worked out by Shri Kirit R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not upheld. 5. The ld. first appellate authority after considering all the submissions of the parties and case law, did not find force in the contentions of the assessee and confirmed the orders of Assessing Officer and this order is subject-matter of these appeals preferred by the assessee. 6. Shri J.P.Shah, Advocate, appeared before us for the assessee-company and has taken up the same pleas which were raised before the authorities below. He began with the assertion that undisputedly the land in question is subject to provisions of ULC Act and our attention was drawn to copy of notice issued by competent authority of ULC Act which is appearing at pp. 47 to 54 of the paper book and English version of relevant portion of paper No. 55. It shows that Survery Nos. 398, 447, 412, 404 437 along with areas of each plot is shown in Form No. F which is provisionally assessed before surrender or may be treated as excess in the said Act. The ld. counsel pointed out that once the land in question is under process of being declared excess then its valuation is to be done on the basis of compensation to be awarded to the assessee under section 11 of the ULC Act. He further pointed out th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issue involved. Apart from it, Valuation Officer has also submitted written submissions and the same are on the basis of his report dated 23-1989 which is appearing on pp. 28 to 46 of assessee's compilation. The substance of the argument of the learned D.R. and that of Valuation Officer is that no doubt the property in question is subject-matter of ULC Act but till to-day has not been acquired as no Notification of its acquisition has been issued by the Government as is required under section 10(3) of the ULC Act and till that notification is issued the property cannot be taken as declared excess and vested in the Government. At the most the property is to be treated as excess as declared provisionally which is apparent from the copy of notice relied by the assessee and appearing at pp. 47-56. It was also pointed out that application of the assessee-company under section 20(1)(a) of the ULC Act for exemption of the land in question from ULC Act is pending and there is likelyhood of its being allowed as guidelines issued by the Central Government in this respect are in favour of land owner. Copy of those guidelines is placed before us as well as it was part of Valuation Officer's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pensation to be awarded. It is only the acquisition of the land which makes the owner of the land entitled to get compensation. The decision of single Judge in the case of K.S. Balakrishnan v. CAIT [1972] 86 ITR 263 (Mad.) was reversed by the Divisional Bench in the case of CAIT v. K.S. Balakrishnan [1976] 104 ITR 368 (Mad.). Apart from it their Lordships have also observed that if a land is not acquired the impact of Ceiling Act has to be borne in mind while valuing the said land. If this reasoning is applied then in the case in hand only provisional declaration of excess land has been made as early as on 14-5-1984 and in spite of 11 years passed no progress has been shown to be made by seeking to acquire that land or to exempt the same. In this view, the land in question cannot be valued at the rate of compensation to be awarded to the land owner in case it is acquired. The case law referred to by the learned counsel relates to these cases where land was declared excess or acquired but in the case in hand the land has not yet been declared excess finally nor vested with the Government under section 10(3) of ULC Act. If this is the position then value of the land is not to be wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
