Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Smt. Saraswati Devi Dalmia on 4 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005) 195 CTR Del 587
Bench: S Kumar, M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dt. 16th April, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench E, New Delhi (for short Tribunal). The appeals decided by the Tribunal pertain to as many as eight assessment years. In respect of some of these assessment years, the Revenue had filed appeals in this Court being WTA Nos. 12-15 of 2004 but a Division Bench, simply holding that no substantial question of law arises in the appeals, dismissed them all on 22nd Nov., 2004. We are in agreement with the view of the Division Bench, but proceed to give reasons for the same.
2. For the asst. yrs. 1971-72 to 1974-75, the market value of property bearing No. 4, Tilak Marg, had been determined by the Tribunal in its order dt. 29th May, 1982, at Rs. 4,49,000 following the rent capitalisation method.
For the eight assessment years in question, the market value of the same property was determined by the CWT(A) at Rs. 6,78,014 based on the valuation report of the District Valuation Officer (DVO), dt. lst/3rd Sept., 1980. In his valuation report, the DVO adopted the rent capitalisation method stating that, "the tenant is not related to the owner to the best knowledge of the valuing authority". The contention of the Revenue before the Tribunal and before us was that another and later valuation report of the DVO, dt. 16th March, 1991, should be accepted because he had correctly adopted the land and building method of valuation since the tenant was related to the assessed and the rent was collusive.
3. We are of the view that this contention was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. First of all, the rent capitalisation method was still valid as per Schedule III to the WT Act and so no change in the method of valuation was called for. Secondly, there was no change in the rent during the relevant period and so, there was no occasion to revalue the property. Finally, the second valuation report, based as it was on the assumption that the tenant was related to the assessed, was in direct conflict with the earlier report, which categorically stated that the "tenant is not related to the owner".
4. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, contended that the DVO should have been heard before rejecting his second report. This issue does not at all arise on the facts of this case. The order of the CWT(A) is admittedly based on the earlier report of the DVO. Since the earlier report of the DVO did not need any reconsideration for the reasons mentioned above, there was no occasion to grant him a hearing in respect of his second report.
Therefore, we find no error in the view taken by the Tribunal and also find that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.
