(Per : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
1) By these appeals under section 27A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") the appellant assessee has challenged common order dated 22.12.1999 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in WTA.No.202 and 203 of 1994, hence both the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2) The assessment years are 1986-87 and 1987-88 respectively. The assessee, a Public Limited Company possessed open land admeasuring 30,090 sq. mts. located at Industrial Area, Gorwa, Baroda. The assessee declared the value of the said land at nil on the ground that the same was beyond the ceiling limit laid down under section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The matter came to be referred to the Valuation Officer under section 16A of the Act for valuation thereof. The Valuation Officer by his report under section 16A(5) of the Act determined the value of land ranging between 14,70,800/- as on 31.12.1983 to 20,62,600/- on 31.12.1988. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment adopting the said figures of valuation. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax who confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. The assessee also failed in its appeal before the Tribunal.
3) While admitting these appeals, this Court, by an order dated 04.09.2000, had formulated the following substantial question of law:
"Whether, the land which is excess under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is to be valued for the purposes of the Wealth Tax Act on the basis of its market value as if such land is not subject to this Act or on the basis of the compensation payable in respect thereof under the said Act."
4) Mr.
J.P. Shah, learned advocate for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Aims Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth- Tax, rendered on 2nd August, 2011 in Wealth Tax Reference No.2 of 1998 wherein it has been held that as it was evident that the land in question was declared surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, which had a depressing effect on the value of the asset, the valuation had to be made on the basis of assumption that the purchaser would be able to enjoy the property as the holder, but with restrictions and prohibitions contained in the ULC Act and in such case value of the property or land would be reduced. It was, accordingly, submitted that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the said decision in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
5) Mr.
K.M. Parikh, learned standing counsel, for the respondent is not able to dispute the aforesaid position. Under the circumstances, it is not necessary to set out the contentions in detail.
6) For the reasons stated in Wealth Tax Reference No.2 of 1998, the question is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the revenue. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 22.12.1999 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Wealth Tax Appeal No. 202/203/Ahd/1994, is hereby quashed and set aside.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (HARSHA DEVANI, J.) Vahid Top