TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons advanced by the assessee was that instead of the comparative method adopted by the Corporation, the suitable basis for assessment was contractor's method. Both the parties led evidence and the Chief Judge came to the conclusion that the comparative method was not unsuitable. It was secondly held that even if the contractor's method were to be adopted, the result would not have been different. After going through the merits of the controversy the Chief Judge reduced the rateable value to ₹ 9,97,555. Both the Corporation and the assessee appealed before the High Court of Bombay and by the impugned judgment the High Court has accepted the appeal of the Corporation by enhancing the reteable value to ₹ 11,81,450. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed. This appeal by special leave is by the assessee. 2. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the comparative method was held to be unsuitable inasmuch as there being no other building within the area comparable in all respects to the building in question, that method could not apply, as, what would have been the rent of the building if let out to a tenant could not be known. This view taken by the High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any building is not to be included in the rateable value. According to learned counsel, this provision of the Act which alone has been pressed into service by the appellant to get excluded the valuation of items (a) and (b), takes care of that machinery only which has its separate existence and about which it cannot be ,said that it is embedded to the building to become its integral part. It is also urged that the type of apparatus and contrivance used in air-conditioning the building, has made the device more a plant than a machinery; and what has been exempted by the aforesaid provision is a machinery and not a plant. 6. Shri Nariman has strenuously urged that when a chattel becomes a part of hereditament, the value of the same has to be included in fixing rateable value of a building, as was opined in London County Council v. Wilkins (Valuation Officer), [1955] 2 All E.L.R. 180, which view of the Court of Appeal was upheld by the House of Lords in London County Council v. Wilkins, [1956] 3 All E.L.R. 38, which decision was subsequently relied upon by the Court of Appeal in Field Place Caravan Park Ltd. v. Harding (Valuation Officer), [1966] 3 All E.L.R. 247 and Dick Hampton ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hagla CJ's judgment in Poona Municipal Corporation's case, and the aforesaid English decisions, Shri Nariman submits that as the air- conditioner machinery in the present case had been embedded in the building and became its integral part, the same must be deemed to become a part of the building, the value of the same has to be included in fixing rateable value of the building. To put it differently, the submission is that the machinery which is exempted by section 154 (2) is one which has its separate existence, which submission has been advanced because of the use of the expression contained in or situate upon in the sub-section. We cannot accept this contention, because in that case this provision would be rendered otiose, as rightly urged by Shri Ganesh, inasmuch as a type of the machinery which Shri Nariman has in mind keynote in any case form part of rateable value. When the legislature sought to exclude the value of machinery of the type mentioned in sub-section (2) from forming a part of rateable value, some meaning has to be ascribed to the provision, otherwise the intention of the legislature would get frustrated. We, therefore, state that the fact that a mach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... say, only unembedded air-conditioners used for cooling a building would get the exemption, but not if the apparatus gets embedded and a central air-conditioning is provided in the building. In any case, as we are concerned with a taxing provision, an interpretation beneficial to the assessee, in case two interpretations be reasonably possible, has to be given. This is a well settled position in law. 11. We, therefore, hold that the High Court erred in law in not excluding the cost incurred by the appellant in items (a) and (b). We would, therefore, order for the exclusion of the same. Item (c) 12. The wooden partitions in question do not apparently attract the provision of section 154 (2) of the Act. They having been used to divide each of the floors into parts and even ceiling columns having been designed with such partition in mind, we entertain no doubt that the value of these partitions did constitute and were rightly regarded as, part of construction cost. The fact that the partitions are fixed on sockets and are easily removable do not make any difference, as the building was from the inception conceived as an office building and it being spacious, division in separ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
