TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (8) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Commissioner of Wealth-tax (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") made an application under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1957"), to the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), requesting him to refer to this court the following questions of law: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in accepting the valuation of the registered valuer who valued land and building and plant and machinery of M/s. Jagat Theatre, Chandigarh, at Rs. 48,32,113 whereas the Departmental Valuation Officer after considering the various factors made the valuation of the above p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f land and building and plant and machinery was estimated at Rs. 1,06,88,008 whereas the assessee has shown H the value of plant and machinery and land and building at Rs. 15,78,566. Thus, the Wealth-tax Officer assessed the assessee's 20 per cent, share in land and building and plant and machinery as valued by the Departmental Valuer at Rs. 21,37,600. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the AAC"), who upheld the order of the Wealth-tax Officer observing that valuation of plant and machinery and that of land and building, as determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer, and which since has rightly been adopted by the Wealth-tax Of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een sought, as extracted above. With regard to the second question of law, no arguments have been advanced by learned counsel representing the petitioner. Before, we, however, might examine the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, as noted above, it would be appropriate to deal with as to how the learned Tribunal dealt with the issue. The learned Tribunal first noted that the assessees have themselves been showing appreciation in the value of their shares as against the book values right from the years 1973-74 to 1981-82 as under: Assessment year Rs. 1973-74 5,72,388 1974-75 5,72,388 1975-76 5,72,388 1976-77 8,40,000 1977-78 8,40,000 1978-79 8,50,000 1979-80 11,80,000 1980-81 11,80,000 1981-82 11,80,000 T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and building also, the assessee had furnished a report from the approved valuer, Shri N. N. Bakshi, which is quite detailed and comprehensive, wherein, the value of the same as on March 31,1982, was shown at Rs. 44,69,400. No reasons at all were given by the authorities below in rejecting the aforesaid reports. The auction sales of cinema plots which were taken into consideration by the authorities below, it was observed, did not reflect the true market price. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of this court in Guran Dass v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 770 wherein, it was held that the price fetched in an auction sale in terms of the Chandigarh (Sales of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, could not be considered as reflecting the current market va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t actual auction prices of the land had been taken into consideration, which were increased only by the accepted rise in the consumer price index, was rejected on the ground that in the cinema building, the Departmental contention stands belied by facts and there was a huge decline in the price of auction sales from 1975 to 1976 and there would be certainly further decline in the subsequent years. There are various other factors taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal in rejecting the contention of the Department and in accepting the one given by the assessee. It appears to us that the whole controversy has since been decided on existing and verifiable facts. It is on variety of facts, some of which have been mentioned above, that....