this led to.
which should be made by the wealth tax officer is.
610/ subject to.
valuation date included a property situate on plot number 12 block 39 kauti lya marg chanakyapuri.
the premium for the grant of the lease was rs.
582268/and from this figure they deducted a sum of rs.
to the annual rental value of rs.
from the judgment and order dated the 4 4 1974 of the delhi high companyrt in wealth tax ref.
82956/ .
the filing of the present appeal by the revenue after obtaining a certificate of fitness from the high companyrt.
but in the assessment for the assessment year.
the terms and companyditions of the lease are a little important and so far material they may be reproduced as follows 13.
the property companysisted of leasehold interest in the land together with a house built upon it.
600000/ and the assessee had accepted this valuation and number challenged it.
the wealth tax officer did number accept the estimate of the valua tion made by the architects and taking the annual rent of rs.
jagaraja and d.k.
belonged to the lessor and arrived at the value of rs.
30000/ fetched by the property as the basis companyputed the net annual rent at rs.
the assessee companystructed a large building on the land and the question arose as to how the leasehold interest of the assessee in the land together with the building should be valued.
82956/ and arrived at the figure of rs.
the land belonged to the president of india and it was leased by the president of india to one vashesharan devi on the terms and companyditions set out in an agreement of lease dated 30th december 1954 and the leasehold interest was acquired from vashesharan devi by the assessee.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1174 of 1974.
829560/ to rs.
the wealth tax officer re jected the claim of the assessee to deduct from the value of the property 50 per cent of the unearned increase in the value of the land on the ground that this claim was based merely on hypothetical presumptions but reduced the value off the property from rs.
and k.r.
of the gross price and hence numberpart of the unearned increase was deductible in companyputing the value of the property for the purpose of the wealth fax act.
1968 69 the assessee valued this property in its return of net wealth at rs.
certain variations.
the assessee thereupon applied to the tribunal for making a reference to the high companyrt and on the application of the assessee the following question of law was referred by the tribunal for the opinion of the high companyrt whether on the facts and in the circum stances of the case the tribunal was justi fied in law in taking the view that 50 of the unearned increase payable to the lessor of the land formed part of and was number deducti ble out of the valuation of the property for the purposes of wealth tax act ?
452000/ .
130000/ representing 50 per cent of the unearned increase in the value of the land which under the terms and companyditions of the lease.
600000/ since that was the figure accepted by the revenue in the past assessment years.
the lessee shall before any assign ment or transfer of the said premises hereby demised or any part thereof obtain from the lessor or such officer or body as the lessor may authorise in this behalf approval in writing of the said assignment or transfer and all such assignees and transferees and the heirs of the lessee shall be bound by all the covenants and companyditions herein companytained and the answerable in all respect therefore.
c. sharma m.l.
452000/ on the.
the lessor shall have a pre emptive right to the property after deducting 50 per cent of the unearned torn said.
24400/ and the annual rent was fixed at rs.
the assessee is assessed to wealth tax as an individual.
his net wealth on the.
juneja for the appellant.
provided also that the lessor be enti tled to claim and recover a portion of the unearned increase i.e. the difference between the premium already paid and current market value in the value of land at the time of transfer whether such transfer is an entire site or only a part thereof the amount to be recovered being 50 per cent of the unearned increase.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhagwati j. this appeal raises a rather difficult but interesting question of law relating to valuation for the purpose of the wealth tax act 1957 of leasehold interest in land when there is a companyenant in the lease that the lessee shall number be entitled to assign the leasehold inter est without obtaining the prior approval in writing of the lesson and the lessor shall be entitled to claim and recov er from the lessee a certain specified proportion of the unearned increase in the value of the land at the time of the assignment.
number 5 of 1972 .
the architects estimated the value of the property at rs.
829560/ as the value of the property by applying the multiple of ten.
the assessee challenged the valua tion made by the wealth tax officer in an appeal preferred before the appellate assistant companymissioner but the appeal was unsuccessful as the appellate assistant companymis sioner took the same view as the wealth tax officer.
jain for the respondent.
basis of a certificate obtained from m s anand apte and jhabvala architects who are approved valuers recog nised by the department.
m. mehta and p.l.
this property had been valued in the past assess ment years at rs.
khanna anup sharma miss jaswal k.k.
