9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment year 1991 - 92. 3. On 22.07.2004, the Appeal was admitted by this court on the following substantial question of law : Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in confirming the addition made on account of valuation of land made on the basis of the instance of sale occurred subsequent to the date of valuation when the impugned land was subject to Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 as on the date of valuation ? 4. Though facts are not in dispute, a brief recital of the same is considered necessary for adjudication of the lis. 5. Assessee filed return of wealth for the assessment year 1991-92, declaring negative wealth of Rs. 36,428.00. Wealth Tax Officer in the assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee had indicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that no interference was called for in the order of the first appellate authority. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 8. Hence, the present Appeal before us. 9. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the crucial date for valuation of the property is the valuation date, as defined under section 2(q) of the Act. For arriving at the proper valuation as on the valuation date, the Wealth Tax Officer cannot take into consideration the value of the property post the valuation date. Learned counsel has referred to Rule 20 of Schedule III of the Act and relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri S. N. Wadiyar (dead) through LR vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Karnataka in Civil Appeal Nos. 6873- 6881 of 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration. 13. Adverting to the present case, it is seen that the assessment year is 1991-92. Therefore, the relevant previous year would be 1990-91. The last date of the previous year, therefore, would be 31st March, 1991, which would be the valuation date. 14 Though other provisions of the Act may not be relevant, we may, however, advert to Schedule III to the Act, which is appended to the Act as a schedule to sub-section (1) of Section 7. Subsection (1) of Section 7 deals with the rules for determining the value of assets other than cash for the purposes of the Act. It says that subject to sub-section (2), the value of any asset other than cash shall be its value as on the valuation date, determined in the manner laid down in Sched ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Investments. An agreement was entered into on 29.11.1991 between the Appellant and 2 others on the one hand and M/s. Renuka Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., on the other. This agreement acknowledged payment of Rs. 43,50,000/- by the purchaser to the vendor within two days of the execution. It further acknowledged receipt of a sum of Rs. 78,75,300.00 by the vendor from the purchaser before execution of the agreement. Wealth Tax Officer took the view that if the land was valued at Rs. 10,34,265.00 no one would have advanced Rs. 43,50,000/- as that amount was substantially higher than the valuation declared by the assessee. 18. Wealth Tax Officer found that when the land was ultimately sold, share of the assessee was Rs. 3,12,774/- which repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ratio laid down in that case also supports our view that the property had to be valued as on date a particular day on the basis of hypothetical sale and prevailing circumstances which definitely is a logical and judicial approach. In view of the reasons recorded in the aforesaid paras and under the totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the W.T.O. has rightly assessed the value of the impugned property in the hands of the assessee and no interference is required in the order of the first appellate authority." 21. Thus, Tribunal observed that there could not have been a better guide for the Wealth Tax Officer for adopting the market value of the property in question than the actual sale itself which occurred within a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssable. Clarifying the matter further Supreme Court held that the Wealth Tax Officer has to form an opinion about the estimated price if the assets were to be sold in the assumed market and the estimated price would be the one which an assumed willing purchaser would pay for it.
23. Viewed in the above context, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. Further, there is concurrent finding of the two appellate authorities below and we do not find such finding to be vitiated by any material irregularity or perversity, warranting interference in an appellate proceeding under Section 27A of the Act.
24. No substantial question of law arises in this Appeal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
