TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucultural plot at Rs. 2,26,300 and the remaining plot with built up area at Rs. 1,64,700. The entire property was thus valued at Rs. 3,91,000. This valuation was made on the basis of the report of the Registered Valuer dated 30-10-1968. The entire property was sold for Rs. 14,00.000 by sale deed 19-10-1973. In the sale deed, the agricultural portion was valued at Rs. 9,00,000, while the non-agricultural portion was valued at Rs. 5,00,000. The agreement to sale was entered into on 1972. The property was sold to International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) which was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. 2. As far as the department is concerned, the valuation was done on two occasions. The first occasion was when there were some acquisition proceedings. At that time, District Valuation officer valued the property at Rs. 24,97,000 vide his report dated 19-10-1973. That valuation report is at pages 73 to 78 of the paper book. The second valuation was done under section 16-A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The report of the District Valuation officer is at pages 79 to 104 of the paper book. In the second valuation report submitted by the District Val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... table title and that title was subject to litigation. A suit being Suit No. 94 of 1968 has been filed by M/s. Chhaganlal Brothers for specific performance of an aggreement of sale dated 15-10-1963 and was pending in the Bombay High Court in respect of the said property. Besides under an agreement dated 21-11-1971, the assessee had entrusted the management and sale of the property to M/s Consulting Promoters Pvt. Ltd., and the said company had to file suit to recover Rs. 4,00,000 in terms of the agreement dated 21-11-1771. There were several encroachments on the property resulting in protracted litigations. The property was sold to ISKCON after making out marketable title to the property by settlement and payment of substantial amounts to various claimants in respect of the property and that for the assessment year 1974-75 the Commissioner of Income-tax had granted deduction of Rs. 3,82,520 in respect of compensation paid to various claimants, legal charges, etc., and that the deduction was confirmed by the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel due discount has not been given in the report of the District Valuation Officer and as such, the value estimated in said report sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat date. As already stated, the agreement to sell had taken place in February 1972. No circumstances could be brought to our notice to persuade us to hold that the price of Rs. 14,00,000. The value of the property had remained stable on the relevant valuation dates. This is because the property was under encumbrance and under litigation and there were no other circumstances to indicate that the value would have varied substantially from one valuation date to another valuation date as far as the relevant four valuation dates were concerned. There is no case for giving any discount for earlier valuation dates. We, therefore, direct the Wealth-tax officer to adopt the value of Rs. 14,00,000 for this property for all the four assessment years. 7. The next question to be considered is whether exemption to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000 should be granted in respect of 5657 sq. yds. of the plot under section 5(1)(iva) read with section 5(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Finance Act, 1969 inserted clause (iva) in section 5(1) with effect from 1-4-1970. There was amendment with effect from 1-4-1975. We are not concerned with that amendment in the present appeals. Under the provision with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of the principle laid down in these two decisions that we shall determine the point in controversy. 8. We shall first narrate the facts as brought on record. This land has been classified as agricultural land in the record of rights has been classified as agricultural land in the record of rigths (sat, bara Autara). The land was used as coconut garden and was assessed to land revenue. The assessee has produced copy of the record of rights showing the plot as agricultural land and assessed to the land revenue. He has also brought certificate from Survey officer, B.S.D., Bombay, showing the actual use of the plot bearing Survey No. 2A, Hissa Nos. 5A and 5B used as coconut garden. The assessee has also filed affidavit of Shri T. C. Changuru, coconut dealer stating that he had taken contracts from the assessee for coconut grown on this plot, from 1963 to 1972. There are also copies of orders of assessments for the assessment years 1960-1961, 1968-69 and 1969-70 wherein the department had accepted the plot as a agricultural land. According to the assessee, the plot had been accepted by the department as agricultural land for all the assessment years 1960-61 to 1969-70. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y High Court in the said decision and has been distinguished. Consequently, we need not consider in detail the said decision of the Bombay High Court applies to the facts of the present case. Our case stands on stronger footing because in the case before the Bombay High Court, the land was lying fallow for seven years; even then it was held to be agricultural land on the basis of earlier entries and earlier use and also on the basis of the fact that it had not been converted to non-agricultural purposes. In the present case, the coconuts which were being grown on the land in question continues to be gown in the relevant assessment years. Thus coconut trees were not removed and the land were not lying fallow. The land had been entered in revenue records as agricultural land and had been assessed to land revenue and had not been converted to non-agricultural use. Consequently, applying the ratio of the said decision of the Bombay High Court, it must be held that the land in question was agricultural land within the meaning of the relevation provision of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. 10. The decision of Podar Mills Ltd's case also supports the view which we have taken. That decision has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
