Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The assessee came in appeal and it was contended before CWT(A) that the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the contentions of the assessee-company, that once the land in question comes under the ULC Act then it was not marketable and its value has to be determined as per the compensation payable by the Government under the ULC Act. The report of the Govt. Registered Valuer submitted before the Assessing Officer from the side of assessee-company was giving the correct valuation of the land in question as per plea of the learned counsel, who appeared before the first appellate authority. It was further contended that no doubt assessee-company was seeking exemption under section 20 of the ULC Act, but that fact alone was not sufficient to bring that land out of the purview of provisions of ULC Act. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Honble Madras High Court in the case of CWT v. K. S. Ranganatha Mudaliar [1984] 150 ITR 619 in which the agricultural land which was found excess to the Ceiling Limit fixed under Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, was to be valued on the basis of compensation receivable under the said Act. The ld. CWT (A) also heard the Valuation Officer who relied upon his report as well as pointed out that case law referred to by the learned counsel, was not helping the assessee as it was in relation to excess declared under the Law relating to agricultural land and provisions of ULC Act are different on certain points. He rather placed reliance on another decision of Madras High Court in the case of Sri Nallasenapathi Sarkarai Mandrad iar v. CWT [1985] 151 ITR 144 which has impliedly disturbed the findings of the earlier decision relied by the learned counsel. He further placed reliance on the order of ITAT Ahmedabad Bench A in WTA Nos. 701 to 703 /Ahd/88 for assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84 rendered on 5-10-1989 in which claim of the assessee that value of open land should be adopted as per the compensation payable under the ULC Act, was not upheld.

5. The ld. first appellate authority after considering all the submissions of the parties and case law, did not find force in the contentions of the assessee and confirmed the orders of Assessing Officer and this order is subject-matter of these appeals preferred by the assessee.

6. Shri J. P. Shah, Advocate, appeared before us for the assessee-company and has taken up the same pleas which were raised before the authorities below. He began with the assertion that undisputedly the land in question is subject to provisions of ULC Act and our attention was drawn to copy of notice issued by competent authority of ULC Act which is appearing at pp. 47 to 54 of the paper book and English version of relevant portion of paper No. 55. It shows that Survery Nos. 398,447,412,404 & 437 along with areas of each plot is shown in Form No. F which is provisionally assessed before surrender or may be treated as excess in the said Act. The ld. counsel pointed out that once the land in question is under process of being declared excess then its valuation is to be done on the basis of compensation to be awarded to the assessee under section 11 of the ULC Act. He further pointed out that Govt. Registered Valuer Shri Kirit R. Patel submitted his report on 16-3-1989 (copy appearing on pp. 11 to 17 of compilation) which is based on this very method and while working out the value of this land, the Registered Valuer had considered the impact of ULC Act and arrived at the valuation on the basis of compensation to be awarded to the assessee. He has further supported his contention with the case law and in that connection he has placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Bombay Bench B rendered on 29-9-1986 in ITA Nos. 655 & 656/Bom/84 for assessment years 1976-77 & 1977-78 (copy of extract enclosed) in which it was held that if land is covered under ULC Act and declared excess then, value of land cannot exceed the amount of compensation receivable under the said Act. The ld. counsel also placed reliance on the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench B decision dated 1-9-1989 in the case of WTO v. Smt. Lataben U. Sheth in which the same view was taken by the Tribunal. He has also compiled ITAT Ahmedabad Bench C order in Dr. Jayanti P. Thakore v. WTO [WT Appeal No. 1016 (Ahd.) of 1987 dated 6-4-1989] in which it was decided and further reliance is also placed on ITAT Ahmedabad Bench A decision in Mohmedkasam M. Valiulla v. WTO [WT Appeal Nos. 205,206 and 380 (Ahd.) of 1985 dated 2-12-1986]. The crux of the submissions is that land in question is to be valued on the basis of compensation to be awarded to the assessee. In the end our attention was also drawn to the asst. order dated 31-3-1983 in Estate Duty account in respect of estate of Diwaliben Raojeebhai Patel and copy of the same is appearing on pp. 24 to 26 with computation on pp. 22-23 of the compilation. According to the learned counsel, the value of the open land was also subject-matter of Estate Duty and its valuation was given at Rs. 25,000 worked out on the basis of compensation to be paid for excess open land and the same was rightly believed by the authorities. On this basis also, the ld. counsel argued that it was fit case in which valuation worked out on the basis of compensation as given out by Registered Valuer should have been treated as appropriate and correct value of the land.

7. As against it, the learned D. R. Shri R. P. Meena has placed heavy reliance on the orders of authorities below and particularly that of first appellate authority which is said to be detailed and reasoned one on the issue involved. Apart from it, Valuation Officer has also submitted written submissions and the same are on the basis of his report dated 2-3-1989 which is appearing on pp. 28 to 46 of assessees compilation. The substance of the argument of the learned D. R. and that of Valuation Officer is that no doubt the property in question is subject-matter of ULC Act but till to-day has not been acquired as no Notification of its acquisition has been issued by the Government as is required under section 10(3) of the ULC Act and till that notification is issued the property cannot be taken as declared excess and vested in the Government. At the most the property is to be treated as excess as declared provisionally which is apparent from the copy of notice relied by the assessee and appearing at pp. 47-56. It was also pointed out that application of the assessee-company under section 20(1) (a) of the ULC Act for exemption of the land in question from ULC Act is pending and there is likelyhood of its being allowed as guidelines issued by the Central Government in this respect are in favour of land owner. Copy of those guidelines is placed before us as well as it was part of Valuation Officers report.

9. After considering the rival submissions of the ld. representatives of both the parties, it may be relevant to point out that undisputedly the land in question is subject-matter of ULC Act as apparent from provisional declaration of its excessness by Statement-F issued by competent authority of ULC Act. However, it is undisputed that after provisional declaration made by the competent authority in 1984 as is apparent from English extract of that Statement-F nothing material has taken place as assessee has not come before us with the specific information as to what happened to the excess land under ULC Act and as to what happened to its application moved under section 20(1) (a) of ULC Act for its exemption. The facts remain that till date the land in question stands on the same footing as it was on 15-5-1984 when the same was declared provisionally is excess as is apparent from p. No. 55, the English Extract of Form No. F. Mere provisional declaration of excess land will not be the criteria for valuation of the land on the basis of compensation method. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Nallasenapathi Sarkarai Mandradiar (supra) in which their Lordships have laid down that till the land is not finally acquired under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, the same cannot be valued on the basis of compensation to be awarded. It is only the acquisition of the land which makes the owner of the land entitled to get compensation. The decision of single Judge in the case of K. S. Balakrishnan v. CAIT [1972] 86 ITR 263 (Mad.) was reversed by the Divisional Bench in the case of CAIT v. KS. Balakrishnan [1976] 104 ITR 368 (Mad.). Apart from it their Lordships have also observed that if a land is not acquired the impact of Ceiling Act has to be borne in mind while valuing the said land.