Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. In the case of C. Krishna Prasad v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax [1970] 76 ITR 115 (Mys) the Mysore High Court has again dealt with this question. There a site was leased out at certain rent for a term of 30 years with an option to the lessee to renew the lease for a further term of 10 years. The tenant was to build a theatre building on the site at his own cost which he should surrender to the lessor at the end of the lease without any compensation. The tenant constructed the theatre accordingly. On the valuation date for the purposes of valuation of wealth-tax, six years of the lease had expired. It was held by the Mysore High Court that the proper method of valuation of the property, for the purposes of wealth-tax assessment, was to determine the value of the building on the valuation date, deduct therefrom depreciation at two and a half per cent. per annum, which was the depreciation allowed by the income-tax department for a first class building, for 34 years, that was, the unexpired portion of 24 years of the lease plus the period of ten years for which the lessee had an option of renewal, and on the basis of that figure, determine the value of the right as on the valuation date applying the Parks Table and taking the interest yield at 5 per cent. and add to that figure the value of the site as on the valuation date. It would not be correct to take the value of the building at the end of the lease period at the same figure as the value as on the date of valuation and adding to the valuation the value of the right to collect rent for the remaining period of the lease. According to the court, under Section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act, the Wealth-tax Officer had to compute the value of the property on the basis of the value it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date, that was, on the basis of what a willing seller would reasonably expect from a billing purchaser. In the case of buildings which were in the possession of tenants and the tenants could not either be evicted or the rent payable by them enhanced, the only proper method of valuation, if there were no sale transactions of house property that would have given the basis for valuing the market value of the property, would be to capitalise the annual rent by a certain number of years' purchase. The method of valuing the land and the building separately and adding up the values would be improper in such cases. It was held that no material by way of sale transactions of house property leased to tenants was placed before the officer and, on the facts of the case, the mode of valuation by capitalisation at twenty times the annual rental value was the only proper method of valuation which the officer and the Tribunal should have accepted. The method of valuation adopted by the Tribunal of valuing the building and the land separately and further adding the benefit of the future rent was not justified in law. Before we deal with a decision of this court on which reliance has been placed, we may also refer to another decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Gouthamchand Galada and Gyanchand Galada v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax . There the assessee who owned a building constructed on a land of 18 grounds had let it out to the Government of Madras on a monthly rent. In his wealth-tax return, the assessee had valued the property, at twenty times the annual rental value of the premises. The Wealth-tax Officer held that the capital value returned by the assessee was only for the building and 5 grounds which was necessary for the convenient occupation and enjoyment thereof and valued the balance of 13 grounds at the market price. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted the addition holding that in a property let out along with vacant land appurtenant to it, it must be assumed that the rent included the ground rent also unless it was shown that the rent was confined to the use of the building alone. The departmental appeal was allowed by the Tribunal in the view that, as the assessee had not produced evidence to show that the lease was of the entire property including the land, it must be presumed that the Goverment had taken on lease only the building and hence the method of valuation adopted by the officer was justified. It was held by the Madras High Court that the inference of the Tribunal that the lease was of the building alone being purely on the fact that the lease was in favour of the Government could not be supported as correct. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for disposal.