9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommon order. 2. The assessee is an individual. He was the owner of land at Ghorapdeo, which was given on rent to a number of tenants who in turn had built structures on the land given to them on rent. The value of this property was shown by the assessee at Rs. 2,42,000 but was taken by the Wealth-tax Officer at Rs. 4,15,000 both for the assessment year 1977-78 and 1978-79. For the assessment year 1979-80, it appears that a reference was made to the Valuation Officer and in conformity with the report of the Valuation Officer, the value of the property was taken at Rs. 4,47,000. Against this value of the property adopted in the assessments by the Wealth-tax Officer the assessee went up in appeal. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Officer there were some instances of sale of plots of land where the multiple to the income derived from ground rent is based on a yield of 3.2% to 3.6%. Our attention was also invited to the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Special LAO v. P. Veerabhadarappa [1985] 154 ITR 190 wherein their Lordships laid down that in the case of agricultural lands there were many imponderables inasmuch as there was no security of the principal amount, no liquidity of investment nor any certainty of income due to the risk of failure of the crop on account of vagaries of weather and other uncertainties, and the difficulties of transfer of the land due to various land reform legislations and in order to compensate for these risk factors, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the income derived from ground rent of the Ghorapdeo property should be based on a yield or return of 12% for the assessment year 1977-78 and 15% for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. At the outset it will be necessary to point out that for the assessment year 1977-78 there is only an appeal by the revenue and there is no appeal or cross-objection by the assessee. The issue in this appeal is, therefore, confined to whether the multiple to be applied to the income from ground rent derived from the Ghorapdeo property should be based on a return of 6.5% as was claimed in the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue before us or 10% as was held by the Appellate Assistant Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y case, exceed 10. That is, in other words, where the property under consideration is not agricultural land but other land, e.g., the land under consideration here, the multiple to be applied to the income from the property should be based on a return of say 8%. However, it has also not to be lost sight of that in the case of P. Veerabhadarappa their Lordships were dealing with the fair market value of agricultural land in the years 1971 and 1972 whereas in the present case the values of the property under consideration here are for the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 for which the relevant valuation dates are 31-3-1977, 31-3-1978 and 31-3-1979. It is also necessary here to point out that the remark of the Valuation Officer in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
