B.L. Chhibber, Accountant Member - (1.) THE short but important point which has fallen for decision in these four appeals relates to the valuation of the surplus land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
(2.) The assessee is a Public Limited Company and is in possession of open land located at Industrial Area, Gorwa, Baroda. The area of such land is 30,090 sq. mtrs. The assessee declared the value of this land at nil on the ground that this land is beyond ceiling limits laid down in Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. The valuation of the land was referred under Section 16A of the WT Act, 1957 to the Valuation Officer and the Valuation Officer vide his report under Section 16A(5) determined the value of the land as follows : JUDGEMENT_1098_TLIT0_19950.htm The Assessing Officer completed the assessments adopting the above noted figures of valuation. On appeal, the learned CWT (Appeals) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer observing as under: The Assessing Officer has highlighted the fact that it is clear from his order under Section 16A(5), the departmental valuation officer has duly considered the appellant's objections raised vide its letter dated 15-3-1989 while determining the value of the relevant land. Moreover it is relevant to note that the relevant land has not been acquired by the Government, nor any action is stated to have been taken by the Government for the acquisition of the said land. Besides, considering the location, the area and all other relevant facts, the valuation determined by the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. Accordingly, considering the totality of the facts of the appellant's case, the value of the land determined by the departmental valuation officer and adopted by the Assessing Officer stands confirmed for all the assessment years under consideration.
(3.) SHRI J.P. Shah, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CWT (Appeals) erred in holding that the value of the excess land which is subject to the Urban Land Ceiling Act, is not to be valued on the basis of the compensation which the assessee will be entitled to under the Urban Land Ceiling Act because the said land has not been acquired by the Government. He further submitted that the CWT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the question of valuation of land will not arise if the land was already acquired because in that case the assessee will not be the owner of the land and no other question of valuation will arise because the assessee would have already got the amount of compensation. The learned Counsel further submitted that the CWT (Appeals) erred in not taking note of Direct decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Gouri Prasad Goenka & Family (HUF) v. CWT[1993] 203 ITR 700 and the Madras High Court decision in the case of CWT v. K.S. Ranganatha Mudaliar [1984] 150 ITR 619 and dealing with the problem as if it was virgin of case law when in fact the above two cases are directly on the point in favour of the assessee and there is no decision against the assessee on the point. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the CWT (Appeals) decided the matter on 12-10-1994 and there was already a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Maganlal Mohanlal Panchal (HUF) [1994] 210 ITR 580 holding that even the Tribunal at Ahmedabad was bound to follow the sole judgment of a High Court other than Gujarat High Court, which will apply a fortiori to the CIT(Appeals). Based on the above submissions, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer be directed to value the surplus land under the Land Ceiling Act on the basis of compensation which the assessee is entitled to receive under the said Act, i.e., Rs. 4 per sq. mtr. Such excess open land is 30,090 sq. mtrs. There is no dispute between the assessee and the department regarding the valuation of the other parts of the property, being the factory land and building situated thereon.;