9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The assessee had one-half share in a house property called 'Bashir Lodge', situated at 7/190, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur. This property is used by the assessee for his residential purposes. The WTO had referred the matter of valuation of this property to the Valuation Officer under section 16A of the Act. The Valuation Officer determined the value of this property, called 'Bashir Lodge', at Rs. 32,69,000. On this basis, the value of the assessee's one-half share came to Rs. 16,34,500. The assessee disputed the correctness of this valuation made by the Valuation Officer, before the WTO. Apart from that, the assessee also made a claim before the WTO that, since the property in question had been used by the assessee for his residential purposes throughout the period of 12 months immediately preceding the valuation date, in accordance with the provisions of section 7(4) of the Act, for the purpose of assessment for the assessment year 1976-77 (which is now under consideration), the same value of the property should be taken as had been taken for the assessment year 1971-72. In the assessment for the assessment year 1971-72, the WTO had adopted the value of the assessee's one-half share in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luation provided for by the provisions of section 7(4) would not be available to such surplus land. 4. The further question arose as to how the surplus land, which was not to be considered as being part of the house for the purposes of section 7(4), was to be determined. What was the area of land that was to be regarded as being appurtenant to the house ? The Commissioner stated that the terms 'land appurtenant to the house' and 'surplus land' have not been defined under the Act and, as such, they were to be understood, as in common parlance. The Commissioner had also stated that in this regard, the assistance of such other laws like the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, where such terms have been used, could be taken for the purpose. It has been stated by the Commissioner that in section 2(g) of that Act, the term 'land appurtenant' has been defined to be an area of 500 sq. mtrs. in a place where building regulations exist. On the basis of this definition, the Commissioner held that the area of land, which could be considered to form part of Bashir Lodge, could be considered to be only 500 sq. mtrs. The plinth area of Bashir Lodge was 3,053 sq. yards. Thus, accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 7(4), is that compared with the plinth area of the house, the land area is quite large and hence the entire land cannot be considered to form part of the house for the purpose of concessional valuation under section 7(4). Hence, we have to find out if there is anything in section 7(4) by virtue of which we have to understand that the term 'house' will not comprise the entire land but only that portion which could be regarded as being appurtenant thereto. 7. The term 'house' has not been defined. Neither has it been defined in section 2 which gives definitions of various terms, not has it been defined for the limited purposes of section 7(4). Hence, we have to understand by the term 'house', what it means in common parlance. We agree with the authorised representative of the assessee that in absence of definition of the term 'house', the commonly understood meaning of the term has got to be adopted. In common parlance, house does not only mean the constructed area but it also includes the open land that surrounds it and is used as part of the house. As to what is the area of the open land, is not a material consideration in designating it as being part of the house. The onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the convenient occupation of the house." 8. The Allahabad High Court, in the case of Shiv Narain Chaudhari v. CWT [1977] 108 ITR 104, had considered whether several self-contained dwelling units which are contiguous and situated in the same compound and within common boundary and having unity of structure could be regarded as one house. The High Court came to the conclusion that the dwelling units would be regarded as one house. 9. From the above, it becomes quite obvious that the term 'house', which has been the subject of interpretation under various statutes, has been interpreted in a very broad sense. In absence of any definition under the Act of the term 'house', it has to be construed as understood in common parlance. When so construed, it would include within its ambit not only the land occupied by the superstructure or the appurtenant land but would also include garden, orchard, servants' quarters, tennis court, etc., which are attached to the house for its useful enjoyment. We think that the interpretation given by the Commissioner to the term 'house', whereby the house is to merely include such land, which under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, can be re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which that word has in common parlance. We fail to understand as to how the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act will be of any help in deciding the issue whether a departure from the common parlance meaning of the term 'house' was required to be made, for the purposes of section 7(4). The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act tells us as to how much of land is to be regarded as being land appurtenant to the house, in a given case. But the question as to what area of land is to be regarded as being appurtenant to the house, is a question which will arise only when the basic question, whether the term 'house' under the Act is to include the entire land attached with it and which is used as part of the house, or only a portion of the land that can be regarded as being appurtenant to it, has been answered. The Commissioner took it for granted that the term 'house', for purposes of section 7(4), will not be understood as it is understood in common parlance, and it will not, include the entire area of land, but only that much of land, which could be regarded as being appurtenant to it. The Commissioner made this assumption without examining whether such an assumption was called fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
