M.K. Chaturvedi, Judicial Member - (1.) THESE cross appeals rotate round the common issues and relate to assessment years 1980-81 to 1986-87. For the sake of convenience, these are disposed of by a consolidated order.
(2.) Shri N.A. Palkhivala along with Sri P. Murali Krishna appeared on behalf of the assessee. The revenue was represented by S/Shri K. Rangabhashyam and I.J. Naidu. Necessary documents and papers were presented at the time of hearing in the form of paper books. Revenue filed 3 paper books and 9 paper books were submitted on behalf of the assessee. Various arguments placed before us by Shri Palkhivala resemble so many radii of a circle starting from different points on its circumference but all oriented towards the valuation of beneficial interest in right perspective. According to learned counsel it is only aggregate 'beneficial interest' that can be taxed. The beneficial interest is subjected to litigation. What value it would fetch if sold in open market? The prospective buyer would indeed ponder over the point - what actually he is buying - jewel or litigation? The main plank of Shri Palkhivala's argument was in regard to seeking adjustment to the total value of the jewellery adopted by Shri Jayant N. Chowlera, the Valuation Officer. Learned Counsel did not question the valuation as such as done by Shri Chowlera but he contended for adjustment on account of uncertainties, hazards and risks of litigation. The other issues relate to the principles of assessment
(3.) THE general conspectus of the main plank of Shri Rangabhashyam's argument was that the valuation by Shri Chowlera was done after considering the factors like uncertainties, hazards and risks of litigation though it is not clearly discernible from the valuation report. Since these factors have already been considered no adjustment on these counts is required in arriving at the correct valuation of the jewellery. Shri K. Rangabhashyam at the time of hearing made the following prayers:- (i) that the request for adjustment by the approved valuer may be allowed and the decision on the valuation of the jewellery may be deferred. (ii) the valuation of the auctioneers is essential for determining the value of the jewellery on the respective dates in question and so the same may be called for; otherwise the decision regarding the fixation of value of jewellery may be deferred.;