Shri T.V. Rajagopala Rao, President - (1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the assessee and it relates to asstt. year 1990-91. The assessee is a private limited company. The relevant valuation date was 31-3-1990. It filed wealth-tax return on 20-9-1991 returning a net wealth of Rs. 2 lakhs. The assessee has three pieces of land at Juhu, Chunabhatti & Baroda besides having land and building called "Bella Vista" property at Peddar Road. It had also "Patel House" as one of its assets besides having movable properties like motor cars. By his assessment order dated 15-5-1993, the Wealth-tax Officer assessed the net wealth of the assessee at Rs. 31,53,02,500. Against the said assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before the CWT (Appeals) IV, Mumbai. The learned CWT (Appeals), Mumbai, by his order dated 3-5-1994, partly allowed the appeal. Now, against the unsuccessful portion of the claim of the assessee before the CWT (Appeals), the present second appeal is filed.
(2.) In this wealth-tax appeal the, first ground is with regard to valuation of Chunabhatti & Chembur properties whose value was confirmed at Rs. 20,30,000. This ground was withdrawn by Shri Prakash Jotwani, learned counsel for the assessee, on 11-11-1996. So also, the 4th ground, which deals with valuation of land at Baroda, which was fixed by the Lower authorities at Rs. 1,26,750, was also withdrawn on 11-11-1996 itself. Out of ground Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6, ground No. 6 is general in nature under which leave to amend, alter or vary the grounds only was prayed for. However, no petition praying leave either to amend, alter or vary the grounds of appeal was filed. Therefore, we are virtually left with ground Nos. 2, 3 & 5, which are as follows :- "2. The CWT (Appeals) erred in taking Patel House as Wealth of the assessee though appellant is not owner of the same as it is a leasehold property. Without prejudice to what is stated above the CWT (Appeals) erred in confirming the valuation of Patel House at Rs. 1,75,00,000 without taking into consideration the merits of the appellants case.
(3.) THE learned CWT (Appeals) also erred in confirming the addition of wealth of Bella Vista and valuing the same at Rs. 22,74,37,800 though the property is not owned by the appellant, but is leasehold property.;