Delhi High Court
Cwt vs Smt. Saraswati Devi Dalmia on 4 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: [2005]144TAXMAN782(DELHI)
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 16th April 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench E, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ITAT). The appeals decided by the ITAT 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.12-15/2004 but a Division Bench, simply holding that no substantial question of law arises in the appeals, dismissed them all on 22-11-2004. We are in agreement with the view of the Division Bench, but proceed to give reasons for the same.
For the assessment years 1971-72 to 1974-75, the market value of property bearing No. 4, Tilak Marg had been determined by the ITAT in its order dated 29-5- 1982 at Rs. 4,49,000 following the rent capitalization method.
For the eight assessment years in question, the market value of the same property was determined by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) at Rs. 6,78,014 based on the valuation report of the District Valuation Officer (DVO) dated 1/3 September 1980. In his valuation report, the DVO adopted the rent capitalization 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 ITAT and before us was that another and later valuation report of the DVO dated 16-3-1991 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.
We are of the view that this contention was rightly rejected by the ITAT. First of all, the rent capitalization method was still valid as per Schedule III to the Wealth Tax 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".
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 ITAT and also find that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
Dismissed.