Decided on June 14,1994



Moksh Mahajan, Accountant Member - (1.) THESE four appeals for assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 have been filed by the assessee against orders of the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 25-8-1989. They are disposed of by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
(2.) Shri R.K. Gauba, Advocate attended on behalf of the assessee and Shri Suman Gupta represented the department. The sole issue involved in these four appeals relates to valuation of property consisting of residence-cum-nursing home at Mission Compound, Saharanpur. The ground floor is used by the assessee for her Nursing Home and the first floor occupied by her for her residential purposes. The value declared and the one determined by the authorities below for all these years are as under :- JUDGEMENT_2711_TLIT0_19940.htm While the value declared by the assessee for all these years was on the basis of cost of construction, the value adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer was based on the valuation report of the Valuation Cell, to which the case was referred by the WTO. The valuation certificate was also filed by the assessee whereby the value of property was arrived at by two methods namely, Rent Capitalisation and Land & Building. By Rent Capitalisation method the value was arrived at Rs. 1,41,750 and by Land & Building method at Rs. 6,01,725. Bifurcation of later was as under :- JUDGEMENT_2711_TLIT0_19941.htm The WTO adopted the value as arrived at by the Valuation Cell after rejecting the assessee's plea that the value of the entire building should be worked out by Schedule III of the Wealth-tax Act which replaced Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules with effect from 1-4-1989. As per the WTO Rule 1BB was not applicable to the case of the assessee as the portion occupied for self-residence was less than 662/3 of the total covered area. The learned DCIT (Appeals) confirmed the aforesaid finding of the WTO. Relying on the various decisions of both the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and Allahabad High Court, rendered in the cases of Krishnadas Govinddas Parikh v. WTO [1990] 37 TTJ (Ahd.) 546; Smt. Kusumben S. Sheth v. WTO [1991] 41 TTJ (Ahd.) 357; and Govind Hari Singhania v. ACWT, it was argued by the learned counsel for the assessee that provisions of Section 7 of W.T. Act being procedural and resultantly that of Schedule III being machinery section relating to procedure for working out the value of the asset, should be made applicable to the pending assessments. This was also for the reason that the provisions brought on the Statute, though later, are beneficial to the assessee and hence should be made applicable to her case. The entire property should be valued as per the formula laid down in Schedule III of the Act.
(3.) THE learned Departmental Representative opposed the stand taken by the learned counsel for the assessee. It was argued that Schedule III was inserted in the Act with effect from 1-4-1989 and as such could not be made applicable to the pending assessments. Any provision of law which affects the vested interest of the parties could not be applied with retrospective effect. As even rule 1BB was not applicable to the case of the assessee in respect of the self-occupied portion, the question of applicability of Schedule III did not arise.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.