M.S.SHAH, J. - (1.)These four appeals are filed by the assessee under Section 27A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 against the judgment and order dated 9.1.2001 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Wealth-tax Appeal Nos. 55 to 58 of 1999 for assessment years 1991-92 to 1994-95. Since the appeals involve common questions of law and fact, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.)The appeals were admitted for considering the following substantial questions of law:-
(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal substantially erred in law in dismissing the appeal of the appellant without taking into consideration the relevant material on record and without any 'speaking order' on merits?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal substantially erred in law in interpreting the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act with regard to definition of 'Urban Land' in Section 2(ea) clause (v) and Explanation to Section 2(ea) which stipulates that the area of land occupied by a building does not form part of Urban Land?

(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that by virtue of the provision of Section 7(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as the property under consideration was exclusively used by the assessee throughout the period of twelve months immediately preceding the valuation date, its value was to be determined at the option of the assessee in the manner laid down under in Schedule III to the Act as on the 1st day of April 1971?

F A C T S

(3.)The facts leading to filing of these appeals, briefly stated, and as found by the Tribunal and evident from the map of the property on record, are as under:-
3.1 The appellant- Dr KM Shah had purchased land bearing Revenue Survey No.114, Final Plot No.417/1 of proposed Town Planning Scheme No.3 in Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad admeasuring 2893 sq.mts. in 1954 in the name of his two minor sons Mrugesh and Bhadresh. At the time of finalization of Town Planning Scheme, the area of the plot became 2970.76 sq.mts. Thereafter, a lay out plan of the said land was prepared which was approved by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 26.10.1967. In the said lay out plan, the land was sub-plotted into four sub-plots as under:- On 30.1.1968, Dr KM Shah executed a gift deed on behalf of his above named two sons gifting sub-plot No.417/1/3 to three daughters of Dr KM Shah. A residential bungalow was constructed on sub-plot No.417/1/1 in 1968 with the floor area of 351 sq.mtrs. on the ground floor plus construction on a part of the first floor.

3.2 In the year 1994, Bhadresh, one of the sons of the appellant, filed a suit in the City Civil Court against the appellant and against Mrugesh K Shah claiming the aforesaid property to be a joint family property and prayed for partition of the said property. The City Civil Court appointed an Arbitrator who gave an award dated 30.3.1995 holding that the property in question was HUF property and proposing a partition of the same by re-locating the sub-plots in Final Plot No.417/1. The Arbitrator allotted sub-plot No.417/1/1 to Bhadresh K Shah, sub-plot No.417/1/2 to appellant Dr KM Shah and 417/1/4 to Mrugesh K Shah. As per the re-location done by the Arbitrator, each of these three persons got an area of 818 sq.mts.. Of course, sub-plot No.417/1/1 allotted to Bhadresh K Shah had the residential bungalow constructed on it. On the basis of the aforesaid award, the City Civil Court passed decree dated 17.7.1995 in terms of the award.

3.3 The appellant, his two sons and his daughters entered into an agreement of sale dated 1.4.1995 for selling the entire property being Final Plot No.417/1 to the promoters of proposed Sugam Shops & Cooperative Housing Society etc.. The sale deeds were executed on 20.4.1996showingsale consideration of Rs.6,54,71,500/(rounded off to Rs.6.55 Crores for convenience for the purposes of discussion in these appeals). The consideration was divided between the appellant and his two sons equally, that is, each one of them got nearly Rs.1.81 Crores and the three daughters got an amount of Rs.37.24 lakhs each.

3.4 The aforesaid property being Final Plot No.417/1 having four sub-plots and having a residential bungalow on sub-plot No.417/1/1 was shown as a property of appellant-Dr KM Shah as an individual in his income-tax and wealth-tax returns. In the wealth-tax returns of the appellant, the value of the said property was being assessed under Section 7(2) read with Rules 3 to 6 in Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act, 1958 (the Act) at Rs.22593/- as on 1.4.1971 and was being claimed as exempt under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act.

3.5 The Assessing Officer completed the assessment for all the four assessment years under appeal (A.Ys. 1991-92 to 1994-95) by including the property as belonging to the appellant in his individual capacity, as was also originally shown by the appellant before the arbitration award dated 30.3.1995. The Assessing Officer held that the bungalow built on sub-plot No.417/1/1 with the land of the said sub-plot qualified for deduction under Section 5(1)(iv) or (vi), as the case may be, being one house belonging to the assessee. The Assessing Officer further held that sub-plot Nos.417/1/2 and 417/1/4 were "urban land" as defined in the Wealth-tax Act. He got the properties in question valued through the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 16A of the Act and adopted the value as determined by the DVO for assessment framed for all the four relevant assessment years under appeal. The DVO gave the valuation by his report dated 15.7.1997 as under:-

3.6 The assessee challenged the assessment order in appeal. The learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) upheld the orders of the Assessing Officer. It, however, appears that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) heard the appeals under the Wealth-tax Act for the A.Ys. 1991-92 to 1994-95 along with the assessee's appeal under the Gift-tax Act for A.Y. 1995-96. The controversy involved in the appeals under the Wealth-tax Act was different from the controversy involved under the Gift-tax Act. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) heard all the five appeals together and by order dated 19.3.1999 dismissed the four appeals under the Wealth-tax Act as well as the appeal under the Gift-tax Act.

3.7 The assessee challenged the orders in the appeals under the Wealth-tax Act in Wealth-tax Appeal Nos.55 to 58 of 1999 before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned departmental representative, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals under the Wealth-tax Act by its judgment and order dated 9.1.2001. Thereafter, the appellant filed Misc. Applications for rectification in all the four appeals. In the meantime, the appellant had already filed the present tax appeals for challenging the judgment and order dated 9.1.2001. The same were, therefore, disposed of on the ground of pendency of rectification applications with liberty to revive in case the rectification applications were dismissed. The rectification applications came to be dismissed by the Tribunal's order dated 25.5.2001. Hence, the appellant was permitted to revive these appeals.