TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (7) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of a registered valuer?" The facts relating to the first question are that the assessee had shares of the following companies 1. Birla Bros. Pvt. Ltd., 2. Hyderabad Agencies Pvt. Ltd., 3. Kores India Ltd., 4. Birla Consultants Ltd., 5. Jayant Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd., and 6. Central India General Agents Ltd. The said shares are unquoted. The Wealth-tax Officer valued the shares of the first four companies on the break-up method. So far as the other two companies are concerned, the Wealth-tax Officer adopted the maintainable profit method in determining the valuation of the shares. In Matter No. 149 of 1987 in the case of CWT v. India Exchange Traders' Association [1992] 197 ITR 356 (Cal), where the judgment was delivered on March 21, 1991, it has been held that rule 1D is mandatory. Therefore, the value of the unquoted shares of the first four companies has to be made on the break-up method as was done by the Wealth-tax Officer. Since the Wealth-tax Officer himself adopted the maintainable profit method in determining the value of shares of the other two companies, e.g., Jayant Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and Central India General Agents Ltd.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e above case. In the above case, in paragraph 4, the Bench in the case of K. K. Birla (HUF) for the assessment year 1981-82 held as follows: 'The assessee's argument is correct that the first appellate authority cannot direct the Assessing Officer to refer the matter of valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer when this power was not exercised by the Assessing Officer. The argument taken by the assessee in this behalf is supported by the decision in M.V. Kibe v. CWT [1987] 168 ITR 82 (MP). Further, the matter of valuation of shares in private limited companies is covered by the decision of the Tribunal (Special Bench) in W. T. A. No. 478/(Cal) of 1987 and W. T. A. No. 440/(Cal) of 1987, wherein it has been held that rule 1D is not mandatory, and it was directed that the shares should be valued on the yield method. Consequently, the Assessing Officer is directed to value the shares of private limited companies by applying the yield method and the valuation shown by the assessee on the basis of the registered valuer's report, should not be accepted. So far as the assessee's share in the coffee estate is concerned, the same has been accepted by the Tribunal in the case of K.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omprised in coffee plantations in order to have some uniform procedure for speedy completion of the pending assessments as far as Karnataka charges are concerned. 2. The plantation land in the coffee plantations may be classified into the following three categories, namely : (a) lands covered by plants which have started yielding ; (b) virgin land Which is in the process of being developed and land covered by plants which have not started yielding ; (c) virgin land capable of being planted but which has not been planted and lands not falling in any of the above specified categories. S. In valuing lands at 2(a) above, the value will be determined on the basis of yield per acre. As far as coffee plantations are concerned, the following yield/value pattern was considered reasonable: Yield per acre in Kgs. Valuation Rs. 250 and below 5,000 251 - 350 6,000 351 - 450 7,000 451 - 550 9,000 551 - 650 11,000 651 - 750 13,000 751 and above 15,000 The average of six years' production of the yielding area is to be arrived at on this basis. Where, however, six years data is not available, the average is to be worked out with reference to the number o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be exercised by the Wealth-tax Officer pursuant to the direction of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals). In other words, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) did not have any jurisdiction to ask the Wealth-tax Officer to refer the matter of valuation to the Valuation Officer. In Raja Baldeodas Birla Santatikosh, v. CWT [1991] 189 ITR 613, a Division Bench of this court considered this aspect of the matter. It was held that the appeal was a continuation of the original proceedings. The bar of limitation is on the Wealth-tax Officer's power to make an assessment. It will be applicable only to the initial order to be made by him and not to an order that would be made by him pursuant to a direction from the appellate authority. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ) was competent to give the direction as he did. So far as the question regarding the acceptance of the valuation on the basis of the circular is concerned, it is no doubt true that the circular is not binding on the assessee if it is not accepted by the assessee. The valuation can always be challenged by the assessee even if it is made on the basis of the circular unless it is consented to by ....