TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (11) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....private property of Sri J.C. Wadiyar, the former ruler of the princely State of Mysore, as per the inventory approved by the Government of India at the time of accession of the State to Union of India in 1950. There were disputes arising out of the wealth-tax assessments of Sri J.C. Wadiyar pertaining to assessment years 1967-68 to 1976-77. Sri J.C. Wadiyar died on 23-9-1974. His only son, Sri Srikantadattanarasimharaja Wadiyar, had applied to Settlement Commission to have the disputes settled. The Settlement Commission admitted the application and gave a final decision on all the issues and for the purpose of these appeals we need state only facts in relation to Bangalore palace. The said order is dated 29-9-1988. In that, it was held that Bangalore palace was assessable in the hands of Shri J.C. Wadiyar (HUF) for those years. 5. The Settlement Commission fixed norms, for completing the assessments. The departmental valuation officer had estimated the value of Bangalore palace. The Settlement Commission held that the value fixed for 1967-68 should be adopted for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 so that there could be a uniform valuation for a block period of three years....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xed by the Settlement Commission for 1976-77 and the figure was Rs. 13,18,44,000. He adopted the same valuation for the block period commencing from 1976-77. Therefore, the same value came to be adopted in the assessment for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. He may clarify here that Rs. 13,18,44,000 was for both land and building --- the bifurcation being Rs. 12,57,95,250 for land and Rs. 60,48,750 for building. 8. For the assessment year 1979-80, there was no report of the departmental valuation officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had worked out the value of this property at Rs. 19.96 crores for the assessment year 1981-82. Therefore, the Wealth-tax Officer adopted that valuation for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. Here also the bifurcated valuation for land and building and it was Rs. 18,85,00,000 and Rs. 1,11,00,000 respectively. 9. For the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84, this asset was valued at Rs. 18,78,64,000, Rs. 29,85,06,000 and Rs. 29,85,06,000 respectively. For the assessment year 1984-85 the Wealth-tax Officer determined the value of this asset at Rs. 31,72,91,000 on the basis of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal and the proceedings are WTA Nos. 485 to 488/Bang/1990. 14. Appeals for 1984-85 and 1985-86 were next taken up by the Commissioner (Appeals). By an order dated 14-8-1990, he held that vacant land of the Bangalore palace should be valued at Rs. 2 lakhs. Suffice it to say that he followed his earlier order dated 31-7-1990 passed in regard to assessments for the years 1977-78 to 1980-81. The revenue has appealed in respect of these years. 15. As can be seen, there is no, dispute in regard to valuation of the residential and non-residential structures within the Palace area or the appurtenant land thereto. The assessee has accepted the value fixed. His grievance is only in regard to valuation of the vacant land. 16. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Ceiling Act, for short) received the assent of the President on 17-2-1986 and gazetted on the same day. It has been adopted by the State of Karnataka. 17. The Bangalore palace area is within the Bangalore urban agglomeration. The provisions of Ceiling Act have application. The assessee and other members of the family had filed statements under section 6(1) of the Ceiling Act and the competent authority appoin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....question of valuation of this Palace property has to be examined bearing in mind the special circumstances that surround the issue. The argument of the learned departmental representative, Shri S.K. Iyer, was that the valuation is estimated price which in the opinion of the Wealth-tax Officer would fetch if sold in market on the relevant valuation date. Proceeding further, he submitted that one has to imaginatively think of a sale to know the price which it may fetch the owner and such exercise is possible whether or not the property is transferable or not. On that premise he sought to support the assessments made. 22. The open land is an urban land as defined in section 2(o) of the Ceiling Act. Holding of the assessee was/is in excess of the ceiling limit and this is clear from the order passed by the competent authority under the Ceiling Act. The owners who hold in excess of the ceiling limit are required to file statements before the competent authority who shall determine the excess area. The excess land can be acquired by issue of a notification in Gazette and from the date specified by the competent authority the vacant land vests with the State Government, vide section 10....