JUDGEMENT
B.M. Kothari, Accountant Member -
(1.)THE appeals preferred by the Revenue and the cross objections preferred by the assessee are against the common order passed by the Dy. CWT(A) for A.Ys. 1980-81 and 1981-82.
(2.)The assessee submitted returns of wealth for A.Ys. 1980-81 and 1981-82, declaring net wealth of Rs. 48,390 and Rs. 91,043 respectively. The WTO assessed the wealth Under Section 16(3) at Rs. 5,33,779 and Rs. 5,75,600 respectively for the A.Ys. 1980-81 and 1981-82. The main additions, which are subject matter of the present appeals and the cross objections, related to valuation and nature of land situated in the village area of Vatva and Paladi. The assessee had declared the value of his half share in the land at Vatva at Rs. 8,400, which was based on the report of a Registered Valuer of agricultural lands, who had valued the said land at a total figure of Rs. 16,800 vide his report dated 28thJune, 1980. The assessee claimed the value of the aforesaid agricultural land as exempt and had thus shown nil value for his half share in the said land. The WTO held that the land in question is not agricultural land and he valued it at the rate of Rs. 90 and Rs. 95 per sq.yd. for A.Ys. 1980-81 and 1981-82 respectively and accordingly half share of the assessee was determined at Rs. 3,04,920 and Rs. 3,21,860 respectively for the two assessment years. The Dy. CWT(A) treated the land as agricultural land but directed the WTO to adopt the value at 50% of the value determined by the WTO. The department is in appeal against the findings given by the Dy. CWT(A) that the said land is an agricultural land and its value should be adopted at 50% of the value determined by the WTO. The assessee has filed the cross objections against the higher value adopted by the Dy. CWT(A) for the aforesaid land and has contended that the Dy. CWT(A) ought to have accepted the declared value, based on the report of a Registered Valuer, as correct.
The second point taken by the assessee in its cross objections relates to valuation of Paladi land. The assessee had declared the value of this land at Rs. 48,390 for both the A.Ys. under consideration. The WTO adopted the rate of Rs. 225 and Rs. 250 per sq. yd. for A.Ys. 1980-81 and 1981-82 respectively. Such value was adopted by the WTO on the basis of the fact that the assessee sold his half share in the aforesaid land at Paladi to Chandanbala Co-operative Housing Society in the year 1982 at Rs. 3,73,420 i.e. at the rate of Rs. 280 per sq. yd. The Dy. CWT(A) upheld the value of the Paladi plot as determined by the WTO. The assessee has challenged the findings given by the Dy. CWT(A) confirming the value of the said land as determined by the WTO in its cross objections. The assessee has also taken an alternative ground that in case the nature of land at village Vatva is not accepted as agricultural, then the valuation of the land should be made as per the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. It has been further mentioned in the cross objections that the Dy. CWT(A) ought to have also clearly held that agricultural land is exempt under the provisions of Wealth-tax Act
(3.)WE will first dealt with the question relating to land situated in the village area of Vatva as to whether it was an agricultural land and, if so, what should be the correct value of the said land. The learned departmental representative vehemently argued that the land in question is not an agricultural land as it remained fallow for a number of years and was not put to use for agricultural purposes. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of Arundhati Balkrishna v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 245, CIT v. Siddharth J. Deasi [1983] 139 ITR 628 and CIT v. Smt. Lilavati Thakorelal Patel [1985] 152 ITR 565. He submitted that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court have laid down various factors which are relevant to be looked into for determining the nature of the land. If the question relating to determination of nature of this land is considered keeping in view the various factors explained by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the above referred cases, the inevitable conclusion will be that the land in question cannot be treated as agricultural land. He, therefore, contended that the findings given by the Dy. CWT(A) that the said land should be treated as agricultural land deserves to be cancelled and the reduction in value granted by him to the extent of 50% of the value determined by the WTO also deserves to be set aside and the order passed by the WTO should be restored.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.