Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Chinubhai Haridas (HUF)

D.A. Mehta, J.—The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ''C'', has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court :

"Whether, in law and on facts the reversionary value of land was to be included while working out the valuation of the property specially when the property was rented out ?"

The assessment years are 1975-76 to 1978-79. The assessee-HUF was the owner of an immovable property known as "H.A. Market", Kalupur, Ahmedabad. The said property is occupied since long by tenants and there has been no increase in the rent payable by the said tenants. The assessee had accordingly returned the value of the aforesaid property for the wealth-tax purposes at Rs. 3,22,000 for all the four years. However, the WTO adopted the values at Rs. 4,84,000, Rs. 5,00,400, Rs. 5,18,500 and Rs. 5,38,200, respectively for the four years. The enhanced value was arrived at by including the reversionary value of the land on which the property is situate.

Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the AAC who accepted the contention of the assessee that the reversionary value could not be included for the purposes of valuation, by relying upon the Calcutta High Court decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Ashima Sinha, . The Tribunal confirmed the view taken by the AAC as no other distinguishing features were placed before the Tribunal.

Mr. B.B. Naik, learned counsel for the Revenue, very fairly stated that the view taken in the decision of the Calcutta High Court has also been taken by various other High Courts in the following cases :

(i) Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Ram Saran Kajriwal, ;

(ii) Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. R.S. Tandon and others, ;

(iii) Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Urmila L. Pittie, ;

(iv) Narinder Paul Syal and Others Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, ;

It was also pointed out that there is no decision which has taken a contrary view.

Having perused the aforesaid decisions, we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed therein and we find no reason to differ from the same. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.