Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1988 (10) TMI 66

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case, the same would be available not only in respect of the land under the said house but also in respect of the compulsory open space to be left around the said house. The appellant inherited a self-occupied residential house along with a pot of land at Chembur on the death of his father on 25th Jan., 1981. The house, according to the appellant, is more than 30 years old. On that date, the appellant got the said house property valued by one approved valuer at Rs. 2,57,500. He declared the value of this property in his Wealth-tax returns for the years under appeal. The WTO found, on going through an application for certificate under s. 230A (1) and documents filed therewith, that the appellant had sold this self-occupied property at Chembu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant would get the benefit of s. 7(4) only in respect of the constructed area and other surplus area should be valued as per the market rate on the valuation date. The AAC observed that "residential house" contemplated in s. 7(4) was only on the part of land admeasuring 75.25 square meters of land and the remaining land was lying vacant. Since the FSI was one in that locality, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of s. 7(4) of the WT Act only in respect of the residential house and the land on which it stood which admeasured 75.25 sq. meters of land and the remaining area of 454.02 sq. meters should be valued independently as surplus land. IT is against this finding of the AAC that the appellant has come in appeal before us. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dditional ground, in terms of which he argued that the property, being a residential property, be valued under r. 1BB. Shri Patil argued that r. 1BB was applicable in the assessee's case since it was a residential property and along with the additional ground which is not dated Shri Patil has enclosed a copy of the valuation report from B.C. Shah Associates dt. 5th Sept., 1988 giving the working of the valuation of the property under r. 1BB which, according to the appellant's valuer, works out to Rs. 2,64,204. 4. The Valuation Officer, who was present at the time of the hearing, pointed out that the property concerned was situated outside the Chembur Rly. Station. It was also in a commercial zone. The permissible FSI was one and only a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... with considerable value. As regards the decision relied upon by Shri Patil, we find that except the decision reported in Masood Halim, the other two decisions do not directly deal with this issue. As regards the decision of the Allahabad Bench of Tribunal reported in (1987) 28 TTJ (All) 101 : (1987) 20 ITD 310 (All) that decision was given on the facts of that particular case. In that case, the assessee had one-half share in a house property which was being used by him for his residential purposes. The area of the land on which the house stood was very large and the entire land was being used as part of the same property as lawns, gardens, etc., and was being treated as one residential unit. There was no dispute that the entire land was be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... plicability of r. 1BB which was never agitated before the lower authorities. 6. We have considered all the aspects of the case. In assuming that s. 7(4) is applicable in the present case, the value adopted for the immediately preceding year in the assessee's case cannot be considered to be the price which the property would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date next following the date on which the assessee became the owner of the house which is the later date than 1st April, 1971. In their letter dt. 24th Nov., 1986 addressed to the Valuation Officer-VII, the assessee's chartered accountant had, inter alia, stated at page 6 as under: "6. In the circumstances, it is necessary that the valuation of the property as on 31 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates