TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the method of evaluating land and building and plant and machinery of the assessee, and valuation based upon the GAV, has been rejected, in our considered view, no question of law arises for determination. - - - - - Dated:- 28-8-2003 - Judge(s) : V. K. BALI., JASBIR SINGH. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by V. K. Bali J. - By this common order, we propose to dispose of five connected matters, namely, I. T. C. No. 5 of 1990 and W. T. C. Nos. 3 to 6 of 1990 as, common questions of law and fact are involved in all these matters. Learned counsel representing the parties also suggest likewise. The bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention have, however, been extracted from I. T. C No. 5 of 1990-CIT v. Sunaina Gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 27(3) of the Act of 1957 has been filed seeking adjudication on the questions, mentioned above. The facts, on which the questions aforesaid are stated to be arising, reveal that the assessee is a co-owner of Jagat Theatre and was holding 20 per cent, share in the Jagat Theatre. While filing the wealth-tax return, the assessee declared share in Jagat Theatre at Rs. 2,36,000. Before, however, the assessment was framed, the Wealth-tax Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the WTO") referred the matter for valuation in regard to Jagat Theatre to the Departmental Valuation Officer. The said officer estimated the value of land and building of the theatre at Rs. 93,57,308 and the value of the plant and machinery at Rs. 13,30,700. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of valuation only, whereas the registered valuer had not worked out the value by land and building method but also by yield (rental/ income) method as well. It is then urged that plot of land auctioned in close vicinity to the building of the assessee itself, which had been taken into consideration by the registered valuer, was wrongly ignored by the learned Tribunal. The registered valuer adopted the rate of Rs. 570 per sq. yard, after taking into account and reserve price of the land earmarked for different cinemas in a distant locality in Chandigarh, as the basis, which is not correct, further contends learned counsel. The contentions of learned counsel, as noted above, wholly pertain to the first question of law, reference with regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e other objections raised by the assessee was even referred to by the Wealth-tax Officer. Similarly, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has summarily disposed of the objections of the assessees by observing that the Government valuer, while valuing the plant and machinery, has taken into account the fact that values had appreciated from year to year and that plant and machinery was old. In relation to the land and building, the observation of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was simply that the Departmental Valuation Officer had taken into consideration the auction prices of Anand and Batra Cinemas. The learned Tribunal then referred to the report of Shri R. P. Sharma, retired chief engineer, in whose opinion the total value of the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer had further increased the price of these plots on account of general increase in the consumer price index. It was observed that the reason for declining in the prices of cinema plots was attributed to introduction of television, which had made cinema business less profitable. In so far as Anand Theatre, for which the auction price in 1975 was Rs. 35,10,000, is concerned, it was observed that it never came into existence probably because the price was too high to make investment in the cinema a profitable business. Further, whereas, Jagat Theatre had only 952 seats, in Batra Theatre there were 1,500 seats and there was a provision for 1,400 seats in Anand Theatre and 1,150 seats in Piccadilly and 1,100 in K. C. Theatre. Further, Jagat T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied facts in the method of evaluating land and building and plant and machinery of the assessee, and valuation based upon the GAV, has been rejected, in our considered view, no question of law arises for determination. In view of the discussion made above, we hold that inasmuch as question No. 1, as extracted above, is exclusively based upon facts, which have been correctly appreciated by the learned Tribunal, no referable question of law arises for determination. We may reiterate that no arguments on the second question framed by the petitioner, as extracted above, have been raised before us. We, thus, answer the only question, on which arguments have been raised, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The petition filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
