Tribunal rejects DVO's adjournment request, values properties based on status, partially allows assessee's appeal

The Tribunal rejected the DVO's application for adjournment and proceeded with the case. Regarding the valuation of properties at Mulund and Ghatkopar, the Tribunal determined the values based on the properties' status as "Excess Lands" and "Land Locked," differing from the DVO's approach. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal partly, adopting revised property values and accepting the additional ground of appeal regarding the charging of interest.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for adjournment by the DVO.
2. Valuation of properties at Mulund and Ghatkopar.
3. Additional grounds of appeal regarding charging of interest for delay in filing of return of Wealth under section 17B of the Act.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Adjournment by the DVO:
The DVO requested an adjournment on the grounds of being occupied with time-barring cases. The case had already been adjourned multiple times at the DVO's request, with specific dates mentioned (12-6-2001, 12-7-2001, 14-8-2001, 13-9-2001). The Tribunal found no sufficient reason for further adjournment and rejected the DVO's application, deciding to proceed after hearing both parties.

2. Valuation of Properties at Mulund and Ghatkopar:
- The properties in question were open lands owned by the assessee since 1940 and were declared "Excess Lands" under the Urban Land Ceiling Act (ULC Act) on 24-12-1980. The appeal against this order was rejected on 19-3-1983, but the Hon'ble High Court ruled in favor of the assessee on 7-7-1993.
- The DVO had determined the valuation of these properties at high figures on various dates, which the assessee contested, arguing that the properties were "Land Locked" and covered under the ULC Act, thus their value should not exceed Rs. 3.5 lacs.
- The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the DVO's report, noting that the properties remained "Excess Lands" on all relevant valuation dates. The Tribunal found the DVO's method of valuation based on comparable sale instances and a 10% deduction for litigation to be incorrect.
- The Tribunal emphasized that the valuation should reflect the properties' status as "Excess Lands" and "Land Locked" on the relevant dates, not the later sale price. The Tribunal referenced several judgments to support this view, including the Supreme Court decision in Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. ACED and the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in CWT v. Amatul Kareem.
- The Tribunal determined the value of the properties as follows:
- Mulund Property:
- As on 31-3-1983: Rs. 17.00 Lacs
- As on 31-3-1986: Rs. 20.4 Lacs
- As on 31-3-1989: Rs. 24.5 Lacs
- As on 31-3-1992: Rs. 29.4 Lacs
- Ghatkopar Property:
- As on 31-3-1983: Rs. 4.0 Lacs
- As on 31-3-1986: Rs. 4.8 Lacs
- As on 31-3-1989: Rs. 5.76 Lacs
- As on 31-3-1992: Rs. 6.91 Lacs

3. Additional Grounds of Appeal Regarding Charging of Interest:
- The assessee argued that there was no delay in filing the return of Wealth, and the Assessing Officer had withdrawn the charging of interest under section 17B through an order under section 35 of the Act.
- The Tribunal noted that the Ld. DR conceded there was no delay in filing the return. Consequently, the additional ground of appeal regarding charging of interest was allowed in favor of the assessee.

Conclusion:
The appeals of the assessee were partly allowed, with the Tribunal ordering the adoption of the revised values for the Mulund and Ghatkopar properties as determined in the judgment and allowing the additional ground of appeal regarding the charging of interest.

---