TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (3) TMI 657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were informed in the Court. On the next dates the case was adjourned by the Order of the Bench and the case was finally fixed for 21-2-2003. There being no sufficient reason for seeking adjournment of the appeal by the DVO, the application for adjournment moved by the DVO is rejected by the Bench and the case is being decided after hearing the Ld. DR and the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 2. The Grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are not pressed on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and are accordingly dismissed. 3. The Grounds of appeal Nos. 4 to 6 relates to the valuation of the properties at Mulund and Ghatkopar. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is owning these properties at Mulund and Ghatkopar since the year 1940. He submitted that the properties at Mulund and Ghatkopar are in the shape of open lands with no construction thereon and are covered under the provision of Urban Land Ceiling Act. He argued that the valuation of open plot of land at Mulund and Ghatkopar were determined by the DVO at a very high figure as under:- Valuation Dates Fair Market Value of property Mulund Plot Ghatkopar Plot 31-3-1983 Rs. 51 lacs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....23 (Ahd.), WTO v. Smt. Lataben U. Sheth [1989] 35 TTJ (Ahd) 546 . The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that there is one another aspect of the case i.e., both the open lands at Mulund and Ghatkopar are "Land Locked" and accordingly no development thereon can be undertaken by the assessee. The application made by the assessee in this regard for approval of the development plan were rejected by the authorities time and again for the reason that the plan for building on any plot cannot be approved unless the site in question is assessable by means of an access road of requisite width as provided in D.C. Rules. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee cited various Orders of the authorities rejecting the development plan of the assessee vide Order dated 12-2-1965 and 21-6-1982. 5. The Ld. DR has opposed the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. He has relied on the Order of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). He argued that the assessee has sold the Mulund land for Rs. 4.81 Crores and the DVO has allowed the suitable deduction for the litigation etc. faced by the assessee. He argued that both the properties in question were released by the Order of the Hon'ble High Court and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dered view this method of valuation of Fair Market Value adopted by the DVO is not correct. The properties at Mulund and Ghatkopar were declared "Excess Land" by the authorities under the ULC Act and remained so on all the valuation dates relevant to the assessment years in appeal and were "Land Locked" land and accordingly to value the properties by physical method of valuation on sale instances of not "Land Locked" lands and taking into consideration the sale price of the property at a much later date after the release of the property by the Hon'ble High Court, is not sustainable in law. To adopt the rate of sale instances of approachable land to value "Land Locked" land is not legal since based on uncomparable sale instances. The building plans of these lands were rejected by the authorities of Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay time and again since the land in question was not assessable by means of an access road of requisite width as provided in the D.C. Rules. The land at Mulund was sold in the year 1994 after the access to the land by a public street was provided vide notification dated 27-8-1993 by the State Government. This notification dated 27-8-1993 was after the valua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e High Court and there was also a likelihood of a favourable decision to the assessee and in spite of the risk and the hazard and the expenses involved in litigation, the rights of the assessee in the lands has a different value than mere compensation receivable under ULC Act as on the relevant valuation dates. The issue before us is how to evaluate the right of the assessee in the properties in question as on the relevant valuation dates. There is no definite formula to evaluate the value of rights of the assessee in the properties. However we reproduce the portion of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in a case where on the valuation date the claim of extra compensation was pending in the Civil Court. In Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. ACED [1980] 122 ITR 21^1 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court reversing the judgment of the High Court held: (1)that the reassessment notice under section 59( a) was liable to be quashed because: (a)the notice was issued on the wrong assumption that the acquired lands still formed part of the estate of the deceased and had been undervalued; (b)the assessment was being reopened for the purpose of including in the principal value of the property passi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anced compensation could be taken as the wealth by the assessee. Though the amount of compensation determined under the Award and later enhanced by the City Civil Court and confirmed by the Tribunal is the quantification of the original right of the assessee to receive the compensation which flowed from out of the acquisition made under Notification dated 25-8-1960, the entire amount of Rs. 4,09,300 which is enhanced amount of Rs. 2,74,454 which was the original amount awarded by the Collector cannot be deemed to be the wealth of the assessee. That entire amount cannot be included in the net income of the assessee. For the assessment years 1960-61 to 1962-63, it would be only 50 per cent of the amount awarded under the award dated 19-4-1960. For the subsequent assessment years 1963-64 to 1970-71, it would be 50 per cent of Rs. 4,09,300 which is the enhanced amount. The entire enhanced amount can never be deemed the wealth of the assessee for those years for that became his absolute wealth only after the appeal was dismissed on 18-12-1970, which is subsequent to the relevant valuation date for assessment years in question." 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case we conside....