M.A.A. Khan, Judicial Member - (1.) THESE five appeals by revenue and equal number of cross objections by the assessee, an HUF, are directed against two orders of the CWT(A)-IV, Ahmedabad - one dated August 16, 1983 relating to A.Ys. 1965-66 and 1966-67 and the other dated August 19, 1983 relating to A.Ys. 1967-1968, 1968-69 and 1969-70. The common question involved in all the matters and for all the years relates to the valuation of certain movable and immovable properties of the assessee-HUP as on the relevant respective valuation dates incidentally falling in all the matters on the last day of the last month of the English Calendar. Parties being common, years involved being the same and facts being common to all the matters we hereby propose to dispose them off by this common order.
(2.) Revenue's Appeals (WTA Nos. 1319 to 1323/Ahd./83). The common grounds taken by the revenue in all the appeals read as under: 1. Rule 1BB being procedural is retrospective in operation ; 2. Property at Plot No. 614-B, being residential property should be valued as per Rule 1BB ; Deduction under Section 5(1)(iv) be given.
(3.) VALUE of shares be computed as per Rule 1D as interpreted by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CWT v, Ashok K, Parikh [1981] 129 ITR 46. Since ground. Nos. 1 to 3 are inter-related and involve common facts they are being considered together as hereunder :- At the well-known 'Ellise Bridge' of Ahmedabad there lies the popularly called 'Panchvati Gulbai Tekra Area' falling in T.P.S. Nos. 3 & 20. This area is inhabitated by persons belonging to upper middle class and all civic amenities like schools, hospitals, offices, markets, cinemas, etc., are available to them nearby. A.M.T.A. buses and auto rikshaws provide means of surface communication. In this 'Panchvati' area there situates a residential building popularly known as 'Ram Niwas', on the 80' or 100' wide TPS Road called Sheth Chimanlal Girdhan Dass Road We were informed at the time of hearing that this 'Ram Niwas' belongs to the brother of the Karta of the assessee-HUF and the karta as well as other members of the assessee-HUF also reside therein. Just behind 'Ram Niwas', in east situate F.P. No. 614-B, and in the east thereto F.P. No. 607-B, both belonging to the assessee-HUF. In revenue's appeals we are concerned with F.P. No. 614-B. In assessee's cross objections we shall be dealing with the valuation of F.P. No. 607-B. 3. F.P. No. 614-B is a rectangular shaped property having all of its 54' wide opening on a 191 feet long & 30' wide kachha road leading to Seth Chimanlal Girdhar Dass Road in the west. This property measures 1434 sq. yds. having 338.50 feet 6' high pacca cemented compound wall. In its northern portion, there stands a garrage-cum room type structure partly constructed in 1936 and partly in 1965. The ground floor as also the first floor cover equal area, 110.4 sq. metres each bringing the built up area to 220.80 sq. m. equal to 265 sq. yds. This structure has T.W. paralled shutters, cement plastered and white-washed finishing, c.c. and kota stone flooring, R.C.C. and c.c. tarracing, some sanitary installations and an estimated life of about 30 years more. The learned CWT(A) has held that this structure is used for storage of households of the assessee and for residence of its servants and their families. 4. For valuation purposes the assessee took both the plots, F.P. 614-B & F.P. 607, as making one plot only and including the scrap value only of the 'old ordinary structure fit for demolition' valued the said property (at 614B) at Rs. 40,000 for each of the first two years, at Rs. 50,000 for the third and at Rs. 69,000 for each of the last two years. In the opinion of the Asstt. Valuation Officer (AVO) the structure was well maintained strong enough to with stand further 30 years having been started as an office of the workshop. He, therefore, adopted land and building method of valuation and valued this property at Rs. 1,04,700, Rs. l,l1,600, Rs. 1,19,500, Rs. 1,28,000 and Rs. 1,40,300 on the relevant valuation dates of all the five years commencing from 1965-66. The assessee is in appeal against this valuation.;