1982 (7) TMI 121 - AT - Wealth-tax

Tribunal Adjusts Property Valuation, Upholds CWT(A)'s Decision

Mrs. SHIRIN NJ GAMADIA. Versus WEALTH TAX OFFICER.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, adjusting the valuation of the Bombay property and upholding the CWT(A)'s valuation for the Poona property. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Valuation of the Bombay property ('Sunbeam')2. Valuation of the Poona property ('Brightland')3. Joint ownership impact on property valuation4. Leasehold and tenancy considerations5. Application of Bombay Rent Control Act6. Cantonment's powers over the Poona propertyIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Valuation of the Bombay Property ('Sunbeam'):The assessee, along with her two sisters, jointly owns the 'Sunbeam' property. The valuation dispute revolves around the method used by the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) and the departmental valuer, who fixed the property's value at Rs. 27,38,000, with the assessee's 1/3rd share at Rs. 9,12,700. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) [CWT(A)] reduced this to Rs. 15,64,272, with the assessee's share at Rs. 5,21,424. The assessee's counsel argued that the valuation was excessive and should consider the property's leasehold nature, tenancy, and restrictions under the Bombay Rent Control Act. The CWT(A) adopted a figure of Rs. 425 per square yard, which the assessee contended should not exceed Rs. 286 per square yard.2. Valuation of the Poona Property ('Brightland'):The Poona property is on Cantonment land, where the military authorities can resume possession at any time. The assessee valued this land at Rs. 47,000, considering the negligible value due to the resumption risk. The Department valued it at Rs. 3,00,000 for the first year and Rs. 3,70,000 for subsequent years. The CWT(A) granted a 15% relief, which the assessee objected to, arguing that the interest in the property was precarious and almost nil due to the Cantonment's powers.3. Joint Ownership Impact on Property Valuation:The assessee argued that an undivided 1/3rd share in a jointly owned property should not be valued based on the entire property's market value. Reference was made to Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act and the Partition Act, 1893, suggesting a substantial reduction in value for jointly owned properties. The CWT(A) had allowed a 15% reduction, which the assessee claimed was too low.4. Leasehold and Tenancy Considerations:The Bombay property is on leasehold land, and the ground floor, first floor, and part of the second floor are leased to relatives of the owners. The assessee argued that the leasehold nature and tenancy should significantly reduce the property's value. The Department countered that there were no restrictions on using or selling the leasehold land and that the joint ownership did not substantially deteriorate the property's value.5. Application of Bombay Rent Control Act:The assessee contended that the Bombay Rent Control Act applied to the property, affecting its valuation. The Department argued that the Act did not strictly apply to vacant land and that the tenants, being relatives, would not obstruct the property's sale.6. Cantonment's Powers Over the Poona Property:The assessee argued that the Cantonment's power to resume possession at any time made the Poona property almost worthless. The Department countered that the right to receive compensation for the building remained and that the likelihood of resumption was very remote. The CWT(A) had reduced the value considering joint ownership but did not find the resumption risk significant enough to further reduce the valuation.Comprehensive Analysis:Bombay Property ('Sunbeam'):The Tribunal held that the joint ownership did not significantly reduce the property's market value, especially in a city like Bombay, where properties are often sold in parts. The valuation method adopted by the CWT(A) was deemed reasonable, and the rental method proposed by the assessee was not the sole method of valuation. The Tribunal allowed a reduction of Rs. 1,50,000 from the value adopted by the CWT(A), adjusting the assessee's 1/3rd share accordingly.Poona Property ('Brightland'):The Tribunal found that the Cantonment's resumption power did not render the property valueless. The likelihood of resumption was considered very low, and the property would still fetch a reasonable market price. The CWT(A)'s valuation was upheld, and the reduction for joint ownership was deemed appropriate.Joint Ownership:The Tribunal agreed that joint ownership did not necessarily reduce the property's value substantially. The reduction given by the CWT(A) was found to be adequate, and no further reduction was warranted.Leasehold and Tenancy:The Tribunal noted that the leasehold nature and tenancy did not significantly impact the property's market value. The tenants being relatives did not pose a substantial obstacle to the property's sale.Bombay Rent Control Act:The Tribunal held that the Rent Control Act's application did not significantly affect the property's valuation. The Act did not strictly apply to vacant land, and the rental method was not the only valuation method.Cantonment's Powers:The Tribunal concluded that the Cantonment's resumption power did not make the Poona property worthless. The market value, as determined by the CWT(A), was reasonable, considering the remote likelihood of resumption.Conclusion:The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, adjusting the valuation of the Bombay property and upholding the CWT(A)'s valuation for the Poona property. The joint ownership and leasehold considerations did not warrant substantial reductions in the properties' values.