1985 (6) TMI 45 - AT - Wealth-tax

Tribunal values property using rent capitalization method, dismisses appeals, allows cross-objections. Expert valuation emphasized.

Sixth Wealth-Tax Officer. Versus BR. Shelly.

The appeals were dismissed, and the cross-objections were allowed. The Tribunal directed that the property be valued using the rent capitalization method, ... Valuation Of Assets, Immovable Property, Valuation Officer Issues Involved:1. Delay in filing cross-objections.2. Valuation of the property 'Lentin Court' for wealth tax purposes.3. Dual capacity of the assessee as landlord and executor.4. Applicability of Rent Control Act.5. Appropriate method of property valuation.6. Use of expert valuation reports versus layman valuation.Detailed Analysis:1. Delay in Filing Cross-Objections:The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the delay in filing cross-objections, citing that similar points had come up in earlier appeals, and the Tribunal had indicated that relief could not be granted without cross-objections. The cross-objections were filed immediately after the Tribunal's decision. Despite strong objections from the department, the Tribunal admitted the cross-objections.2. Valuation of the Property 'Lentin Court' for Wealth Tax Purposes:The assessee returned the value of the property at Rs. 3,74,000, while the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) fixed it at Rs. 22,00,000 and Rs. 25,00,000 for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, respectively. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the value to Rs. 16,42,000 for each year. The departmental valuation officer's report in 1985 valued the property at Rs. 19,69,000 and Rs. 21,23,000 for the two years, respectively.3. Dual Capacity of the Assessee as Landlord and Executor:The assessee, as the landlord, owned the property, while as the executor of his wife's will, he represented the tenancy interest of his children. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's dual capacity did not merge the landlord and tenant rights. The tenancy rights were protected under the Rent Control Act, despite the landlord and executor being the same person.4. Applicability of Rent Control Act:The Tribunal emphasized that the property was subject to Rent Control restrictions. The history of the property indicated distinct streams of succession for the landlord and tenant, and the tenancy did not revert to the landlord despite the same individual holding both capacities. The Tribunal held that the property should be valued as a rented premises under Rent Control laws.5. Appropriate Method of Property Valuation:The Tribunal directed that the property be valued using the rent capitalization method, considering it was subject to Rent Control restrictions. The Tribunal cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court and High Court decisions, supporting the rent capitalization method for properties under Rent Control.6. Use of Expert Valuation Reports Versus Layman Valuation:The Tribunal criticized the WTO for substituting layman valuation for expert valuation without proper reference to a Valuation Officer. The Tribunal held that if the WTO doubted the assessee's valuation, he was bound to refer the matter to a departmental valuer under section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act. The Tribunal directed that the property be valued on the rent capitalization method and based on rule 1BB.Conclusion:The appeals were dismissed, and the cross-objections were allowed. The Tribunal directed that the property be valued using the rent capitalization method, considering the property was subject to Rent Control restrictions and the dual capacity of the assessee as landlord and executor. The Tribunal emphasized the need for expert valuation and adherence to statutory provisions for property valuation.