BOMBAY C BENCH FIFTH WEALTH-TAX v. JAL A. MOOS OFFICER July 17, 1984 JUDGMENT ORDER D.V. JINNARKAR, A.M. assessee owned following seven plots of land at Danda in suburb of Bandra in Bombay City: Survey No. Area H. No. 2(Property) sp. yrd. A. H. No. 2 " H. No. 1 " C.T.S. No. 27 " H. No. 12 (Property) " H. No. 2 " " Total Sq. Yds. assessee, in return of wealth, declared value of these lands at Rs. 1,24,000 as on 31st March,1976, viz. valuation date relevant for assessment year under consideration. WTO made reference to Valuation Officer, Unit VIII, Bombay, on 4th Decision.,1980 stating that value declared by assessee was in accordance with estimate filed by assessee. According to WTO, value declared by assessee appeared to be less than its fair market value and in his opinion fair market value of lands exceeded value as declared by assessee by more than 75 percent. Having regard to nature of assets and other relevant circumstances, he considered it necessary to refer valuation of assets to Valuation Officer. He, therefore, requested Valuation Officer, Unit VIII, Bombay to estimate fair market value of lands as on 31st March 1976 and send copy of order to him and to assessee. Incidentally he brought to notice of Valuation Officer that property was valued by Shri A.N. Mathur, Valuation Officer, Unit VIII by his Report dt. 5th March 1979 for asst. yr. 1968-69 to 1975-76 at Rs. 6,20,784. He also mentioned that AAC had commented that valuation was not properly made and had set aside assessment order for asst. yr. 1968-69 on 24th March,1980. In pursuance of this requisition under s. 16S of WT Act from WTO, Shri A.N. Mathur, valuation Officer, Unit VIII, made valuation and conveyed his order under s. 16A(5) of WT Act for 31st March 1968 to 31st March,1976 valuing plots of land at Rs. 6.2 lakhs; Rs. 6.7 lakhs; Rs. 7.21 lakhs; Rs. 7.67 lakhs; Rs. 12.03 lakhs; Rs. 14.92 lakhs Rs. 17.55 lakhs; Rs. 20.07 lakhs and Rs. 21.95 lakhs respectively. In pursuance of this order under s.16A(5) by Valuation Officer, WTO made assessment valuing plots at Rs. 21.95 lakhs as in 31st March 1976, valuation date relevant for present assessment year. assessee appealed before CWT(A), who, by her order dt. 25th March, 1982 which is presently in appeal before us, reduced valuation of these plots of land by Rs. 13,20,997 to Rs. 8,74,003. revenue is. therefore, in appeal before Tribunal against order of CWT (A) on found that CWT (A) erred in not upholding valuation of plots of land at Rs. 21.95 lakhs on basis of departmental valuer s order which was binding on WTO under s. 16A(6) of WT Act and in further reducing same to Rs. 8,74,003 only. ld. departmental representative addressed us at great length along with Shri S. H. Balchandani, valuation Officer, supporting how sound report dt 20th March 1981 of Shri A.N. Mathur, Valuation Officer was and how CWT (A) was swayed away by irrelevant of considerations in reducing valuation of plots of land from Rs. 21.95 lakhs to Rs. 8,74,003 only. We do not presently propose to refer to detailed arguments made on behalf of Revenue in view of what follows. copy of order dt. 24th March 1980 of AAC for asst. yr. 1968-69 was placed before us on behalf of assessee. In this order, ld. AAC has proceeded to refer to valuation of property at Rs. 6,20,784 as on 31st March,1973 by Valuation Officer by his report dt.29th March,1975 and another valuation by another Valuation Officer of property as on 31st March 1968 at Rs. 6,20,000 on basis of which assessment for year 1968-69 was made. AAC has proceeded to take note of numerous factors mentioned in his order which valuation officer had taken into consideration while valuing property at Rs. 6,20,000 as on 31st March,1968 which apparently other Valuation Officers had not taken into consideration while valuing property at Rs. 6,20,784 as on 31st March 1973. He proceeded to reason that if property was worth Rs. 6,20,784 on 31st March 1973, which appeared to be case, value of property as on 31st March 1968 should be much less. He, therefore, set aside assessment for year 1968-69 with direction to get property revalued for 31st March 1968. It was this order of AAC which was referred to by WTO in his letter dt.3rd Decision.,1980 addressed to Valuation Officer while calling for valuation for 31st March 1976. In response to this requisition from WTO Shri. A. N. Mathur submitted his subsequent report dt. 20th March 1981 which revalued property from 6.02 lakhs to Rs. 21.95 lakhs from 31st March 1976 respectively. It is submitted that in light of these reports, reduction granted by CWT (A) was fully justified and no interference was called for with her order. We have carefully considered facts and circumstances of case and arguments on wither side. 7 plots of land referred to in paper 1 above continued to be with assessee from 31st March 1968 to 31st March 1976 without any appreciable change in nature of ownership. question is of their valuation for 31st March 1976. Shri A. N. Mathur, Valuation Officer, had valued property at Rs. 6,20,784 for all valuation dates from asst. yr. 1968-69 to 1976-77 by his report dt. 5th March 1979 referred to in WTO s letter dt. 4th Dec.,1980. This report has not been made available to us. At same time, we do not think we have missed much as it is absurd that seven plots of land in central locality in Bombay could be valued at same fair market value, i.e., Rs. 6,20,784 without increase or decrease of rupee in value. Then we have another report dt.20th March 1981 from same Valuation Officer valuing property as on 31st March 1976 at Rs. 21.95 lakhs. This report has been submitted by Valuation Officer after his specific attention was invited to all infirmities in his original report by AAC s order dt.24th March 1980. careful perusal of AAC s order would indicate that what AAC was objecting to was to value of property being Rs. 6.02 lakhs as on 31st March 1968 when property was valued at Rs. 6,20,784 on 31st March 1973. valuation as on 31st March 1968 should have been much less than Rs. 6.02 lakhs as clearly indicated if all shortcoming in earlier report pointed out be AAC were taken note of Valuation Officer. We may mention here that AAC s observation were fully supported by detailed report of Shri. P.J. Chainani, another Valuation Officer who submitted his report on 29th March 1975. Instead of reducing valuation from Rs. 6.02 lakhs against valuation declared at Rs. 3.8 lacs by assessee, report dt. 20th March 1981 has progressively escalated valuation from Rs. 6.02 lacs on 31st March 1968 to Rs. 21.95 lacs on 31st March 1976. In our opinion this report is wholly unreliable. It does not take into consideration any of issues mentioned by AAC in his order dt.24th March 1980 and by Shri. P. J. Chainani, Another Valuation Officer in his report dt. 29th March 1975. In our opinion, therefore, CWT (A) was fully justified in rejecting valuation made by Shri. A. N. Mathur in his report dt.20th March 1981. order of CWT(A) calls for no interference on this issue. next question is whether CWT (A) was justified in scaling down valuation of seven plots of land to Rs. 8.74 lakhs as on 31st March 1976. As discussed earlier, Shri Mathur s both report first dt. 5th March 1979 and later dt. 20th March 1981 do not provide any useful guidance in valuation of these plots. Then we are left with only other valuation report of Shri. P. J. Chainani dt. 29th March 1975 which valued plots at Rs. 6,20,784, as on 31st March 1973. We are concerned here with valuation date 3 years later. For reasons mentioned by her in her appellate order, CWT (A) has valued plots at Rs. 8.74 lakhs. In our opinion, considering in which real estate in Bombay was in state of boom, revaluation of property by about 12 to 13 percent per annum is quite reasonable. It calls for no interference. In result, appeal filed by Revenue is hereby dismissed. *** FIFTH WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. JAL A. MOOS