TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (1) TMI 512
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted February 4, 2003, is based on misappreciation of the prior findings of the same points and of facts and law involved in the case and liable to be set aside ? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal dated February 4, 2003 is legally sustainable ? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the classification of the residential property and lands appurtenant to the residential property for the purpose of valuation under the Wealth-tax Act and not valuing the residential property and lands appurtenant to the residential property as per the provisions of section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act is legally sustainable ?" The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and belongs to the royal family of Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Patiala. The Tribunal had initially decided these appeals on October 21, 1998. One of the common issues involved in these appeals has been about the valuation of the then residential property located at Leela Bhawan, Patiala, which has been used by the appellant as such. For the purpose of valuation, the Department had bifurcated the residential land bounded by four w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....option of the assessee be taken to be the price which, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date next following the date on which he became the owner of the house or on the valuation date relevant to the assessment year commencing on April 1, 1971, whichever valuation date is later, and the aforesaid orders of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), we find force in the submission made by learned counsel. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to work out the value of the residential house as on March 31, 1971, in the light of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal and adopt the same value for all the sub-sequent years under consideration." However, in paragraph 2.9 of the same order, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the classification of land into different categories, area of land and valuation of land, is fair and reasonable. Therefore, the residential property and the land appurtenant to it be classified into different categories and so valued differently. It would also be necessary to reproduce in extenso paragraph 2.9, which reads as under : "The further submission made by the learned co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Officer is concerned. It is also observed from paragraph 19 of the impugned order that in subsequent years, the assessee did convert lands appurtenant to residential house into commercial plots and sold them as such. The said observations had not been controverted before us." The assessee-appellant felt aggrieved by the apparent contradictions in paragraphs 2.7 and 2.9 of the order. Accordingly, miscellaneous applications were filed with the grievance that the observation in the aforesaid paragraphs were contrary to each other inasmuch as in paragraph 2.7, the Tribunal had taken note of the fact that the Department had conceded the tubewell and the boundary wall to be part of the residential property. The Tribunal then went on to make observations that the valuation of the properties should be frozen on April 1, 1971. However, in paragraph 2.9, the Tribunal had accepted the classification of land into different categories as made by the Valuation Officer by taking into consideration the letter of the assessee to which reference has been made in paragraph 2.9 of the order. Accordingly miscellaneous petitions filed were accepted by the Tribunal on February 1, 2002 by obs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch land was held to be frozen because of section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act. As regards the remaining land, the Valuation Officer had categorized the same as commercial land and residential land sold in the subsequent years. Margin for providing roads, pathways, etc., was also provided. The said land was valued at different rates. Such bifurcation of the land and the value thereof was upheld by the Tribunal after taking into account the rival submissions made by both parties. This is clear from the finding recorded in paragraphs 2.9 and 2.10 of the aforesaid order. Thus, we do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel that there was contradiction in the findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraphs 2.7 and 2.9 of its aforesaid order. In fact, the land merits in paragraph 2.9 of the aforesaid order has not been treated and considered as part of the residential house. We, therefore, do not find any ambiguity or contradiction in the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not call for any modification. We order accordingly." Mr. Akshay Bhan, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that contradiction ....