TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (6) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt. Even then the Tribunal has thought it fit to make only one reference. Really the Tribunal ought to have made four separate references. Since the Tribunal has failed to do so, we direct the office to treat Reference No. 3 of 1980 as reference in respect of the assessment year 1964-65 only and give separate numbers as Income-tax References Nos. 3A of 1980, 3B of 1980 and 3C of 1980 to references in respect of the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68, respectively. As the questions which arise for consideration in these four references are the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. The questions which have been referred by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act are as under": ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay of compensation, fixed the market value of the property at Rs. 6,50,000. He took into consideration the fact that, in respect of the front portion, the assessee was paid Rs. 1,06,304 and for the rear portion he had got Rs. 4,25,000. He also took into consideration the fact that even the assessee had contended that the said compensation was not adequate and actually he had challenged the awards for obtaining higher compensation. He therefore fixed the market value of the entire property at Rs. 6,50,000. Aggrieved by the four separate assessment orders, the assessee preferred four appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was contended before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the Wealthtax Officer was not justified....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... four different dates. It then accepted the contention of the assessee that the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer would not be relevant for determining the valuation of the property of the assessee on the valuation date. It, however, on the basis of the following reasoning, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal filed by the Department. ". . . The right to receive compensation as observed by the Supreme Court in Pandit Lakshmi Kant Jha's case [1973] 90 ITR 97, became vested in the assessee the moment he was divested of the estate. Under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the Collector making an award under section 11 and taking possession under section 16, the land absolutely....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contended by learned counsel for the Revenue is that though the property was rented, it subsequently came to be acquired and in fact the notification under section 4 in respect of the front portion was issued as far back as March 22, 1963, and in respect of the rear portion, the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on July 27, 1967. By the time the assessment proceedings were completed by the Wealth-tax Officer, the awards in respect of this property were declared by the Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, the amounts which the assessee got by way of compensation really represented the market value of the property and, therefore, the Wealth-tax Officer was justified in determining the market value of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d has to be followed as a safe guide for determining the market value of the said property. In CWT v. V. C. Ramachandran [1966] 60 ITR 103, the Mysore High Court has held that, in the case of buildings with compounds in a city, which are in the possession of tenants and the tenants cannot be either evicted or the rent payable by them enhanced, except in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Control Act, the only appropriate method of valuation is to capitalise the annual rent by a certain number of years' purchase. The method of valuing the site and the building separately and adding up the values would be improper in such cases. We entirely agree with the said decision and we are of the opinion that in the absence of definite and bett....