TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31st March 1986, 31st March, 1987 and 31st March ,1988. The assessee had filed and approved valuer's report in regard to Cunningham Road property No. 15 17 wherein the approved valuer had taken its value at Rs. 11,70,000. The approved valuer had mentioned the area as 45,256 sq. ft. and had enclosed a plan along with his report. The plan refers to properties 15, 16 17) of Cunningham Road and mentions the area of the full property at 58,324 sq. ft. 3. Consequent to the reference made by the AO to the DVO, the property at Cunningham Road was inspected on 25th Nov., 1992, In the report, it has been noted that the property was purchased in the year 1974 and that one of the properties was tenanted by NCC (A Govt. of India unit) and had vacated the premises on 31st July, 1986. It is also noted that one small building was occupied by an ex-Member of Parliament. It has been further noted that the occupation of the small portion by the ex-MP does not come in the way of development of the property. The land area has been mentioned as 5,590 sq. mts. 4. Insofar as the built-up area of the old building is concerned, it has been mentioned that, at the time of inspection, the building that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due allowance has been provided for the same. 6. The assessee had given a site plan which is at p. 50 of the paper book, in which it has been mentioned that the total area of the site is 60,165 sq. ft. and that the built-up area of the main building, out-houses, etc. is 15,190 sq. ft. 7. The objection of the assessees, primarily, is with reference to the AO restricting the co-owners to three when it is known that four co-owners had purchased the properties in 1974. This objection of the assessee is correct which is evident from the fact that, in the case of one of the co-owners, Mr. Raghava Reddy, assessed by the Asst. CWT (Inv.) Cir. 5 (1), Bangalore- a copy of the assessment order has been placed at pp. 60 to 62-it is clearly stated that there are four co-owners. Therefore, to this extent, the assessee must succeed and we direct the AO to include 1/4th share only in the hands of the assessee. 8. The primary objection of the assessees with reference to the valuation is that the DVO had considered the cases located in Cunningham Road which are of smaller size. The plea was that value of land which is of smaller size cannot be compared with a value of the land which is very la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) misled himself and adopted a totally different rate. 10. The submission made before the CWT(A) was that the detailed plan for construction of a hotel premises, as was approved on 9th Nov., 1989, showed existence of buildings on the land. A copy of the letter addressed to the Bangalore Corporation, dt. 15th Sept., 1991, intimating them about demolishing the existing structure was also provided to the CWT(A). A copy of the order of the Spl. Dy. Commr., Urban Land Ceiling, dt. 20th Aug., 1992 was also furnished to lay emphasis on the fact that properties No. 15 and 17 were not a vacant site. It was further alleged that the AO was fully aware of the fact that the old building did exist particularly the one that was in the occupation of the NCC which was used by the assessee for their own business purposes. In support of this plea, the assessees also placed reliance on the fact that, at the time of search, certain documents were seized which showed that the assessees had incurred expenditure in connection with demolition of the structure. The assessees insisted that the property that was rented out to NCC till 31st March, 1986 must be valued on rent capitalisation method only. Fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clusion that Sch. III is inapplicable. 12. The CWT(A) further had proceeded with the submission of the rent capitalisation on the basis that the rent received being paltry, would not reflect the true value. In fact, this he had done because he was of the opinion that Sch. III is inapplicable. He also considered the portion that was occupied by the ex-MP and that the municipal tax levied was Rs. 262. Considering the seize of the building, he determined the land appurtenant to the land and building at 1,500 sq. ft. On this basis, he directed the AO to adopt a value of Rs. 20,000 for the land and building of the rear portion of property at No. 16. He further directed to exclude 1,500 sq. ft. from the computation of land and building method. 13. The CWT(A) considered the portion which was in the occupation of the Chowkidar and one army personnel. He came to the conclusion that it was not at all difficult to push the two persons out and demolish the building. On this basis, he upheld the land and building method. 14. He, thereafter, considered the value of the land adopted by the DVO. In para. 13.4.1, at p. 16, he reproduced the submission of the assessee as to how the land value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Being value declared for properties whose value is subject to scrutiny by appropriate authority this should be considered as more realistic than the other two cases cited. Considering the time-lag from 31st March, 1988 and 15th Dec, 1988, and also taking into fact that the property in consideration for valuation here is bigger in size (this aspect has been partly taken care of by belting method of valuation accepted by me), I would hold that the value of the properties as on 31st March, 1988, can be taken at Rs. 2,000 per sq. mt. in the place of Rs. 3,940 per sq. mt. estimated by the Valuation Officer. 13.7.3. Thus, I would recommend the value to be worked out at the following rates: I belt II belt (15,343 sq. ft.) 31-3-1986 Rs. 1,118 per sq. mt. 894 per sq. mt. 31-3-1987 Rs. 1,286 per sq. mt. 1,029 per sq. mt. 31-3-1988 Rs. 2,000 per sq. mt. 1,600 per sq. mt. The AO is directed to exclude 2,500 sq. ft. from the total area of 60,165 sq. ft. being in possession of tenant who cannot be vacated and to consider this as belonging to property in I belt. The value of the property is to be taken at Rs. 20,000 as directed at sub-para 12.2. of this orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion is corner plot while there is nothing to show that the cases cited are of corner plots. An escalation of 10 per cent over the cases cited may be justifiable in consideration of this. 16.2. Taking into account these aspects, I would direct the AO to adopt the value of this property as under: Valuation date Value suggested by the Value directed to be authorised representative adopted. 31-3-1986 Rs. 1,162 per sq. mt. Rs. 1,278 per sq. mt. 31-3-1987 Rs. 1,336 - do - Rs. 1,469 - do - 31-3-1988 Rs. 1,536 - do - Rs. 1,836 - do" 19. The rival submissions on the above issues have been very carefully considered. Touching, initially, with reference to the applicability of Sch. III, we have observed earlier that the CWT(A) had determined the difference between the unbuilt area and the aggregate area. The aggregate area as has been taken by the CWT(A) is 60,165 sq. ft. and 20 per cent of this works out to 12,033 sq. ft. only. The CWT(A) had taken the unbuilt area while taking 9,000 sq. ft. as the built-up area. This built-up area, as has been pointed out by the assessees, is only with reference to properties Nos. 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n our view, is quite reasonable and does not call for any interference. However, for the valuation dates 31st March, 1988, the CWT(A) adopted a rate of Rs. 2,000 per sq. ft. which, in our view, is quite excessive and that the value suggested by the assessee is reasonable. We, accordingly, adopt a rate of Rs. 1,479 plus inflation per cent per sq. ft. as the value for the front portion of the property for the above valuation date. 22. For the rear portion, the values suggested by the assessee are Rs. 1,029 and Rs. 1,183 per sq. ft. for the valuation dates 31st March, 1987 and 31st March, 1988, respectively. The CWT(A) accepted the value, as above, as on 31st March, 1987, but increased the value to Rs. 1,600 per sq. ft. as on 31st March, 1988. In our view, the rate could be taken at Rs. 1,183 plus inflation per cent for 31st March, 1988. We, accordingly, hold so. 23. As far as the rebate for joint ownership is concerned, the claim of the assessee at 15 per cent before the CWT(A) and at 20 per cent before us, is not based on any rule of law. The Courts have been consistently holding that for co-ownership, rebate of 10 per cent should be allowed and this has been so given by the CWT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
