TMI Blog1994 (11) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner ought to have decided the valuation of the said property instead of restoring the same to the file of the AO for re-examination of the issue and redetermination of the value in respect of the said property. In the appeals relating to the asst. yrs. 1985-86 to 1987-88 being WTA Nos. 591 to 593/Ahd/90 a third grievance is made out that the Commissioner erred in directing the AO to accept the value of 'Nimat Niwas' property at Rs. 84,400 being the value based on rent capitalisation method as certified by the registered valuer of the assessee instead of Rs. 3,26,615 being the actual purchase price paid by the assessee company at a Court auction. 2. The factual matrix in relation to the controversies are briefly narrated as under. The assessee is a private limited company which filed its wealth-tax return for the first year for the asst. yr. 1984-85 pursuant to the revival of the levy of wealth-tax in the case of closely held company by s. 40 of the Finance Act, 1983, made effective from the 1st day of April, 1984, sub-s. (2) of s. 40 of the Finance Act, 1983, says that for the purpose of sub-s. (1) the net wealth of a company shall be the amount by which the aggregate val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the equity share of the assessee or by any relative of any person who holds not less than one per cent of the equity share of the assessee. Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause, "relative" shall have the meaning assigned to it in cl. (b) of Expln. 1 to s. 80F of the IT Act, 1961 (vii) motor cars; and (viii) any other asset which is required or represented by a debt secured on any one or more of the assets referred to in cl. (i) to cl. (vii)" Proviso and Explanation to this sub-section are not relevant for our purpose and, therefore, not noted down here. 3. Sub-s. (4) of s. 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 lays down as to how the value of any asset specified in sub-s. (3) shall be valued. It reads like this: "(4) The value of any asset specified in sub-s. (3) shall, subject to the provisions of sub-s. (3) of s. 7 of the WT Act, be estimated to be the price which, in the opinion of the WTO (now Assessing Officer), it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date." It is pertinent to mention here that by virtue of Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991 sub-s. (4) was substituted reading as under: "(4) The value of any asset specified in sub-s. (3) shal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eement. The Commissioner also took into account the potentiality of this property vis-a-vis the tenanted portion as well as the portion occupied by the company for its business and office purposes and directed the AO to adopt the value as declared by the assessee. The final conclusions and reasons of the Commissioner are given in para 11 of the impugned order. The Revenue is not satisfied with this decision and direction of the Commissioner and hence a grievance in this appeal. 8. Regarding the Saijpur Bogha property the Commissioner restored the matter to the file of the AO to have a fresh look into the issue of valuation of that property. The Revenue has a grievance that the Commissioner ought to have decided the value of this property instead of remitting it to the file of the AO. 9. In respect of the third property i.e. Himat Niwas for the asst. yrs. 1985-86 to 1987-88, the assessee company returned the value on the basis of rent capitalisation method as certified by the registered valuer whereas the AO took the purchase price as the value. The Commissioner was satisfied that the value of the property was correctly worked out by the registered valuer of the assessee on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hrough Finance (No. 2) Act of 1991. It is the contention of the assessee's authorised representative that valuation rules being procedural in nature have to be applied retrospectively, that is to say, even in respect of pending assessments as has been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CWT vs. Shri Kasturbhai Mayabhai (1986) 51 CTR (Guj) 309 : (1987) 164 ITR 107 (Guj) while considering the applicability of r. 1BB and which decision has been respectfully followed by Ahmedabad Bench 'C' of this Tribunal in the appeal of Krishnadas Govinddas Parekh vs. WTO (1991) 37 TTJ (Ahd) 546 and again followed by Ahmedabad Bench 'A' of this Tribunal in the appeal of Smt. Kusumben S. Sheth Anr. vs. WTO (1992) 41 TTJ (Ahd) 357. It was the alternative argument of the assessee's counsel Shri Mukesh Patel that in the event we are not satisfied with the valuation done by the registered valuer on rent capitalisation method and upheld by the Commissioner in the impugned order then the matter may be remanded to the file of the AO for reworking of the value of the Dashiana property in accordance with the rules contained in Sch. III to the Act which has been brought into effect in sub-s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation and avoiding disparate valuation resulting from application of different methods of valuation respecting properties of a similar nature and character. The principle of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in those appeals can with same force apply in relation to valuation rules contained in Sch. III made applicable to companies from 1st April, 1992 as per new sub-s. (4) to s. 40 of Finance (No. 2) Act of 1991 [sic—Finance Act, 1983]. However, we are not inclined to verify and examine whether the valuation done by the assessee's valuer and accepted by the Commissioner is in accordance with the valuation rules as contained in Sch. III of the Act brought into effect from 1st April, 1992 in sub-s. (4) of s. 40 of Finance Act, 1983. Nonetheless, after pondering over the matter we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter regarding the valuation of Dashiana property to the file of the AO with a direction to value the said property as laid down in Sch. III to the WT Act keeping in mind the provisions of r. 3 of the said Schedule also. We order and direct accordingly. 13. Regarding the second grievance of the Revenue in all the appeals regarding Saijpur Bogha property we do no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
