[2017) 14 S.C.R. 597 BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORS. A v. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (Civil Appeal No.3836 of201 l) OCTOBER 13, 2017 B IA. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] Wealth Tax Act. 195 7 - ss. 7 and 16-A - Valuation of asset -Method of valuation - Assessees-appellants were partners in a firm - One of the assets of the partnership firm was a Cinema building - C Assessing officer made a reference u/s. J 6A to the Department Valuation Officer for valuation of Cinema .building - On the basis thereof. Assessing officer assessed the Cinema building adopting the land and building method - Appellate Authority affirmed the assessment made by Assessing Officer - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (!TAT) accepted the case of the assesses that the proper · D basis for valuing the Cinema building .was income capitalization meth~d - Revenue filed reference application - High Court on reference answered the questions against .the assessees holding that Wealth Tax Officer was justified in adopting the land and building method - Plea of assessees be.fore Supreme Court thats. 7(2)(a) is a E non obstantc clause prescribing the inco_me capitalization method for assessing value of the assets of a running business and thus is to be applied in all cases where assessee is canying 011 a business

- Held: Wealth Tax Officer is not obliged to mandatori/y adopt the method provided in s. 7(2)(a) ·in all cases where assessee is carrying 011 a business - s. 7(2}(a) is an enabling provision and resort to it is F discretionary - Such enabling power cannot be held as obligation · or shackles on the right of Assessing Officer to adopt an appropriate method - No error found in the order of Assessing Officer in adopting the land and building method by making a reference to Departmental Valuer to value the property on the said method - G -High Court did not err in interfering with the order of !TAT. Interpretation of Statutes - Taxing Statutes - Plea of assessees that !f there are· more than methods of valuation of an asset . .then the method under which valuation is in favour of assessee must be adopted - Held: Not tenable - In the instant case. the provision,s of H 597 598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A s. 7 are neither ambiguous nor lead to two constructions - Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - s.7. Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The normal rule for valuing an asset for the purposes of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 is the estimated price which in B the opinion of Wealth Tax Officer, the asset would fetch if sold in the open market. Sub-section (2) begins with 11011 obsta11te clause. Sub-clause (a) of sub-section (2) provides that-where the assessec is carrying on a business for which accounts arc maintained by him regularly, the Wealth Tax Officer may, instead of determining c separatclv the value of each asset held by the assessce in such business, determine the net value of the assets of the business as a whole having regard to the balance-sheet of such business as on the valuation date and making such adjustment therein as may be prescribed. Further sub-section (3) again begins with 11011 obstante clause providing that where the valuation of any asset D is referred under Section 16A, the value of such asset shall be estimated to be the price which, in the opinion of the Valuation Officer, it would fetch if sold in the open market. Under Section 16A Wealth Tax Officer can·make a reference to Valuation Officer for any asset for valuation. [Paras 10-12) [604-E-H) l.2 It is true that sub-section (2) of Section 7 begins with E 11011 obstlmte clause which enables the Wealth Tax Officer to determine the net value of the assets of the business as a whole instead of determining separately the value of each asset held by the asscssce in such business. The language of sub-section (2) provides overriding power to the Wealth Tax Officer to adopt F and determine the net value of the business having regard to the balance-sheet of such business. The enabling power has been given to Wealth Tax Officer to override the normal rule of valuation of the properties that is the value which it may fetch in open market, Wealth Tax Officer can adopt in a case where he may G think it fit to adopt such methodology. The appellants' submission that the provision of Section 7(2)(a) is a stand alone provision and is to be applied in all cases where assessee is carrying on a business .is not acceptable. [Para 14) [605-G-H; 606-A-B) Commissioner of Wealth Tax. Calcutta v. Tungahadra Industries Ltd., Calcutta (1969) 2 SCC 528 : [1970] H 1 SCR 789 - relied on.

BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORS. v. COMMISSIONER OF 599 WEALTH TAX

1.3 0Ycrriding power has ·been provided to override the A normal method of valuation of property as given by sub-section · 7(1) to arm the ·Wealth T_ax Officer to adopt the method of vafoation as given in sub-section (2)(a). The purpose and object of giving overriding power is .not tO fetter the discretion. The Wealth Tax Officer is not obliged to mandatorily adopt the method B provided in Section 7(2)(a) in all cases where assessec is carrying on a business. The language of sub~scction (2)(a) docs not indicate that the provisions mandate the Wealth Tax Officer to adopt the method in all' cases of running business .. Resort to Section 7(2)(a) is discretionary and enabling provision to Wealth Tax Officer to adopt the method as laid down in Section 7(2)(a) for a running C business but such enabling power cannot be held as obligation or shackles on right of Assessing Officer to adopt an appropriate method. In the present case reference was made to the Departmental Valuer by Assessing Officer under Section 7(3). Thus there was a conscious decision of the Assessing Officer to D obtain the report from the Departmental Valuer. The said conscious decision itself contained the decision of Assessing . Officer not to resort to Section 7(2)(a). The Valuation report of Departmental Valuer was received which was relied by the Assessing Officer for assessing the assessee in the relevant year. No error is found in the order of the Assessing Officer in adopting E the land and building method by making a reference to Departmental Valuer to value the property on the said method. [Paras 15, 23.J (606-C-D; 610-C-F)

1.4 .The appellants has further submitted relying on The . Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengttl, Calcutta v. Mis. F Vegetttbles Products Ltd. that in the event there are more than one methods of' valuation of an asset of an assessee, the method under which the valuation fs in favour of asscssec has to be accepted. The proposition which "'.as laid down by this Court in that case was that if two reasonable constructions ohaxingstatute are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must G be adopted. The said proposition cannot be read to mean that under two methods of valuation if the value which is favourable to assessee should be adopted. In the. present case, the provisions of Section 7 arc· neither ambiguous nor lead to two constructions. H 600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A The construction of Section 7 is clear. [Paras 28, 29] (612-E; 613-B-C] The Commissioner of Income Tax. West Bengal. Calcutta v. Mis. Vegetables Products Ltd. (1973) 1 SCC 442 : 11973) 3 SCR 448 - held inapplicable. B State of Kera/av. PP. Hassan Koya AIR 1968 SC 1201: I1968] SCR 459 - distinguished. Juggi!al K amlapat Bankers and another v. Wealth-Tax q(Jicer. Special Circle. C-Ward. Kanpur ahd others 1984 (145) JTR 485 - relied on. C Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central) Kanpur v. Bankey Lal and others (Decision dated 21.10.2005 of Allahabad High Court in Wealth Tax Reference 39 of 1985) - referred to. Case Law Reference

D [1970) 1 SCR 789 relied on Para 15 [1968] SCR 459 distinguished Para 17 1984 (145) ITR 485 relied on Para 18 . [1973) 3 SCR 448 held inapplicable Para 28 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3836 E of2011. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2005 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Wealth Tax Reference No. 27of1991. WITH F C. A. NOS. 3837, 3839, 3838, 3840 and 3841 of2011 Ro hit Amit Sthalckar, Kamlcndra Mishra, Advs. for the Appellants. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Ms. Rashmi Malhotr'd, Rupesh Kumar, Ms. Gargi Khanna. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advs. for the Respondent. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. All these appeals raising common questions oflaw have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. The High Court vi de its separate judgments dated 21. 10.2005 decided six Wealth Tax References aggrieved by which. the H assessees have come up in the appeal. All the assessees are partners in BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORS. v. COMMISSIONER OF 601 WEALTH TAX [ASHOKBHUSHAN, J.J afirm M/s. G.D. & Sons. One of the assets of the partnership FirJ'n is a A Cinema building known as "Alpana Cinema" situate at Model Tow11, New Delhi. The question which was rcfcn-cd to the High Court for answer relates to the con-ect method of the valuation of the j1~opcrty that is Alpana Cinema for assessment under Wealth Tax Act: R'cfcrcncc of facts and proceedings in C.A. N0.3836 of2011 shall be sufficient to B decide all these appeals. .

2. Mis. G.D. & Sons of which firm the appellants are partners, purcha~ed land and building in semi-constructed condition on 04.06.1965 for a sum ofRs.8,00,000/-. The construction was completed and Cinema Theatre, Alpana started running in the premises. The Alpana Cinema cproperty was valued by assessment books of accounts. On pending assessment ofWealth Tax ofonc of the partners. the Wealth Tax Officer made a reference for valuation of the Alpana Cinema to Department Valuation Officer, New Delhi by Reference dated 29 .04.1976. Valuation Officer after inspecting the site submitted its report dated 26.04.1977 valuing the property for assessment year 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, D 1973-74 and 1974-75. Notices under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 were issued to the appellants on 30.03.1979. Assessees got the property valued by an approved Valuer adopting income capitalisation method. The assessment order was passed by the Wealth Tax Officer in March, 1983 making assessment for the period from 1970-71 to 1974-75 .. The assessment was completed as per percentage of the right of E different assessees which they have in the Firm. The Assessing Officer relied on the Valuation Report submitted by the Departmental Valuer. The assessee aggrieved by the assessment order filed appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax. The Appellate Authority by its detailed order dated 23.01.1986 ~ffirmed the assessment F made by the Assessing Otlicer on the basis of valuation by land and building method. The income capitalisation method as was relied on by the assessee was not approved.

3. The aggrieved by the different assessment orders the assessees filed Wealth Tax Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal G (ITAT), Delhi Bench, Delhi. The ITAT accepted the case of the assessee to the effect that the proper basis for valuing the Cinema building would be capitalisation of the income. The ITAT held that since the building could be used only for film exhibition and it cannot be used for any other purpose the method of its valuation has to be necessarily different from H 602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A the one no1111ally adopted in the case of buildings which are capable of being used as commercial buildings. The Revenue aggrieved by the Tribunal's order filed reference application through Department. Although, initially the same was rejected by the Tribunal, on the direction of the High Court following two questions were referred to the High Court for decision: B ''1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law for the purpose of Section 7(1) of the W/Jalth Tax Act in determining the assessee 5· interest in the partnership firm c by adopting the fair market value of the assets in question namely. the cinema building on the income mobilization basis instead of land and building method adopted by Wealth Tax Officer?

2. {f the answer to the above question is in the negative r;;nd against the assessee then what ought to he the correct fair D market value of assets in question?" 4. The High Court vi de its judgment and order dated 21. l 0.2005 answered the questions in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. The High Court held that Wealth Tax Officer was justified in adopting the land and building method. The High Court held that yield/rent .E capitalisation method would not be correct method of valuation of the property in question. The High Court relied on its decision in Wealth Tax Reference .~9 of 1985, Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central) Kanpur vs. Bankey Lal and others decided on the same day, i.e., 21.l 0.2005. The assessee aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 21.10.2005 has come up in the appeal. As noted above, in all F Wealth Tax References question was answered in favour of the Revenue. 5. We have heard Shri Rohit Amit Sthalekar, learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the Department.

6. Shri Sthalekar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that G Section 7(2)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act begins with non ohstante clause which is stand alone provision prescribing the income capitalisation method for assessing value of the assets of a running business which was applied by the ITAT. He further submits that the High Court did not controvert findings of the fact returned by the Tribunal. The Tribunal being final fact finding authority. the High Court ought not to have interfered with H BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORS. v. COMMISSIONER OF 603 WEALTH TAX [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] the order of the Tribunal. Each case is to be decide·d on its own facts A and the valuation of the property is a question of fact which having been correctly determined by the ITAT, the High Court erred in interfering with the said judgment. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in case there arc more than one method of valuing the ·property, the valuation which is in favour ofthc asscssce has to be adopted B which is a well settled rule of statutory interpretation.

7. Learned counsel for the Department refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants contends that Wealth Tax Officer has rightly followed land and building method for assessing the property. He submits that the provision of Section 7( I )(a) is an enabling C provision which gives discretion to the Wealth Tax Officer to apply the income capitalisation method in ca5e of running business, ifhe so decides. ·It is submitted that it is not mandatory for the Wealth Tax Officer to apply income capitalisation method in all cases. It is submitted that Cinema building was in the ownership and possession of the asscssec which without being any encumbrances could have easily obtained the best D price in the open market and in such cases the land and building method is appropriate method to be adopted for valuing the property. 8. Learned counselfor the parties have relied on various judgments. which shall be referred while considering their respective submissions. E 9. We need to first notice the provisions of Section 7 which faH for consideration in the present case. Section 7 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 as it stood at the relevant time reads as follows: ''7(J)Su~ject to any rules made in this beha?f. the value of any asset. other than cash, for the purposes of this Act .. shall be estimated to be the price, which in the opinion of F the H'ealth Tax Officer it wouldfelch !f sold in the open market on the valuation dated.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(l)- (a) Where the assessee is carrying oil a business for which G accounts are maintained by him regularly. the Wealth Tax Officer may. instead of determining separately the value of each asset held by the assessee in such business, determine the net value of the assets of the business as a ·~· whole having regard to the balance~sheet of such business . H 604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R·. A as on the valuation date and making such adjustment therein as may be prescribed. 1 (b) Where the assessee carrying on the ku~iness is. a company not restdent in India and a computation in accordance with clai1se(a) cannot be made by reasmi°of the absence of any 8 separate balance-sheet drawn up for the affairs of such business in India the Wealth Tax Officer may take the net value of the assets of the business in India to be that proportion of the net value of the assets of the business as a whole wherever carried on determined as aforesaid as c the income arising from the business in India during the year ending with the valuatiOn date bears to the aggregate income fimn the business wherever arising during that yea1: (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section(I).

where the valuation of any asset is referred by the Wealth Tax Officer to the Valuation Officer under Section 16-A, D the value of such asset shall be estimated to be the price which. in the opinion of the Valuation Officer. it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. " l 0. The normal rule for valuing an asset for the purposes of Wealth Tax Act is the estimated price which in the opinion of Wealth Tax Officer, ·E the asset would fetch if sold in the open market. Sub-section (2) begins . with non obstante clause. Sub-clause (a) of sub-section (2) provides that where the assessce is carrying on a business for which accounts are maintained by him regularly, the Wealth Tax Officer may, instead of detennining separately the value of each asset held by the assessee in such business, detennine the net value of the assets of the business as a F whole having regard to the balance-sheet of such business as on the . valuation date and making such adjustment therein as may be prescribed. l I. Further sub-section (3) again begins with non obstante clause providing that where the valuation of any asset is referred under Section l 6A, the value of such asset shall be estimated to be the price which, in G the opinion of the Valuation Officer, it would fetch if sold in the open market. 12. Under Section t6A Wealth Tax Officer can make a reference to Valuation Officer for any asset for valuation. Section l 6A sub-clause (I) is as follows: H "

• BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORS. v. COMMISSIONER OF 605 WEALTH TAX [ASHOK BHlJSHAN, J.] "16A Reference to Valuation Officer. A (l)'For the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment in respect of any assessment year commencing· before the date of coining iilto force of this section) under this Act. where under the provisions of section 7 read with the rules made under this Act or. as the case may be, the B rules made in Schedule Ill, the market value of any a5set is to be taken into account in such assessment. the Assessing Officer mcry refer the valuation of any asset to a Valuation Officer-:- (a) in a case where the value of the asset as returned is in C a1;corda11ce with the estimate lnade by a registered valuer. if the Assessing Officer is of opinion that the value so returned is less than its fair market value; (b) in any other case, if the Assessing Officer is of opinion- (i) that the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value D <?f the asset as returned by more than such percentage of the value of the asset as returned or by more than such amount as may be prescribed in this behalf: or .

(ii) that having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circtimstances, it is necessary so to do." E 13.Prcscnt is a case where Assessing Officer has made a ' reference for Alpana Cinema on 29 .04.1976. It has also coine on the · record that the order of reference to the Valuation Ofticer was challenged · · by the assesscc by filing: a \\.Tit petition in Delhi High Court. The Appellate Authority in its order had noted about the challenge to the reference F .made to the Valuation Ofticcr by the Assessing Officer. There is nothing on record that the Delhi High Court interfered with order of Assessing Officer referring the Departmental Valuer to value the Alpana Cinema. 14. It is true that sub-section (2) of Section 7 begins with non ohstante clause which enables the Wealth Tax Ofticer to determine the G .'net value of the assets of the business as a whole instead of determining separately the value of each asset held by the asscssce in such business. The language of sub-section (2) provides overriding power to the Wealth .Tax Officer to adopt and detcm1ine the net value of the business having regard to the balance-sheet of such business. The enabling power has H 606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A been given to Wealth Tax Offieer'to ovenide the normal rule of valuation of the properties that is the value which it may fetch in open market, Wealth Tax Officer can adopt in a case where he may think it fit to adopt such methodology. The appellants' submission is that the provision of Section 7(2)(a) is a stand alone provision and is to be applied in all B cases where asscssce is canying on a business. We do not agree with ·the above submission. 15. Overriding power has been provided to ovenide the normal method of valuation of property as given by sub-section 7(1) to arm the Wealth Tax Officer to adopt the method of valuation as given in sub-section (2)(a). The purpose and object of giving oveniding power is not c to fetter the discretion. The Wealth Tax Officer is not obliged to mandatorily adopt the method provided in Section 7(2)(a) in all cases where assessee is canying on a business. The language of sub-section (2)(a) does not indicate that the provisions mandate the Wealth Tax Officer to adopt the method in all cases ofrunning business. Section 7 of D the Act has also come for interpretation before this Court in large number of cases. It is useful to refer to some of the cases. In Commissioner of Wea/tit Tax, Calcutta vs. T1111gabadra btdustries Ltd., Calcutta, 1969 (2) SCC528, this Court had occasion to consider Section 7 of the Act. In the aforesaid ca~e the following question came for consideration before the Court: E

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. for the pwpose of determining the net value of the assets of the assessee under Section 7(2) of the Wealth-tax Act. 195 7 the Tribunal was right in directing that the written down value of the fixed assets of the assessee should he F adopted as the value thereof. instead of their balance-sheet value?" 16. In paragraph 5 while considering Section 7 following was observed: "5 ...... ln our opinion there is justification for this G argumelll. Under suh-section(l) of Section 7 of the Act the Wealth-tax Officer is authorised 10 estimate for the purpose of determining the value of any asset, the price which it would · fetch, if sold in the open market on the valuation date. But this rule in the case of a running business may ojien he H inconvenient and may not yield a true estimate of rhe net BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORS. v. COMMISSIONER OF 607 WEALTH TAX [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] value of' the total assets of the business. The Legislature has. A therefo1·e. provided in sub-section(2)(a) that where the assessee is carrying on a business for which accounts are maintained by him regularZv. the Wealth-tax Officer may determine the net value of the assets of the business as a whole. having regard to the bala1'f'r:e-sheet of such business B as on the valuation date and make such adjustments therein as the circumstances of the case may require ...... "

17. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on State of Kera/a vs. P.P. Hassan Koya, AIR 1968 SC 1201. The above case was a case of valuation of property in reference to Land Acquisition cAct, 1894. In the aforesaid case following observation was made in paragraphs 6 and 7: "6...... An instance of a sale which is pi·oximate in time to the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in re5pect of land similarly situate and with D similar advantages and which is proved to be a transaction between a willing vendor and a willing purchaser vFozildfonn a reliable guide for determining the market value. The value which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from a willing purchaser in respect of a .house generally depends upon a varie_ty of circumstances including ihe nature E of the construction. its age situation. the amenities available. its special advantages and a host of other circumstances. When the proper~y sold is land with building. it is often d![ficult to secure reliable evidence of instances of sale of similar land~ with buildings proximate in· time to the date of ·the notification under Section 4. Therefore the method which F is gc11eral~v resorted to in dete1mining the value of the land with buildings especially those used for business purposes. is the method of capitalization of return actually received or which might reasonably be received.from the land and the buildings. G

7. That method was rightly adopted by the trial court and the High Court. The unit under acquisition is used for business purposes and has a prominent situation in the town of Calicut. There was clear evidence about the rental of the- ~ building. and the trial .court proceeded to capitalize the net H 608 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A annual rental, having regard to the rate of return of 13 112 per cent from gilt-edged securities, by multiplying it by 35 times. The High Court has slightly reduced the multiple. " 18. The above observation made by the Court was general observation not in the context of Section 7 of the Act. The method of B valuing the building property on the basis of rent capitalisation is no doubt provided in various statutes especially in the cases ofrent fixation. The above observation does not help the appellants in the present case. ·

19. More appropriate judgment of this Court which is on the facts of the present case is the judgment in Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers C and another vs. Wealth-Tax Officer, Special Circle .• C-Ward, Kanpur and others, 1984 (145) JTR 485. In the above, case this Court had occasion to consider and inte1vret the provisions of Section 7. The Wealth Tax Officer had made a reference to Valuation Officer for valuing certain buildings belonging to the appellant Firm. The appellant by means of writ petition challenged the reference made by the Assessing Officer to the D Departmental Valuer for valuing the property. Two of the submissions which were made before the High Court as quoted in the judgment arc as below: " ...... (3)the interest of appellant No.2 in appellant No.I-firm had to be valued in accordance with r.2 of the W.T.Rules, E 1957. and hence s. J6A of the Act had no application; (4) the valuation of the concerned buildings forming part of the assets of the business of appellant No.I-firm had to be determined in accordance with the commercial principles · · under s. 7(2)(a) and not under s. 7(1) of the Act. and ....... " F 20. The High Court considered the submissions of the parties and by rejecting the above two submissions held following:

"....... T¥ith regard to the third andfourth contentions the High Court held that r.2. s. 7 ands. J 6A(l)(b}(ii) had to be read harmoniously and 1:2 did 11ot exclude the application of ss. 7 G a11d J6A for valuing an asset of a partner in a partnership firm and that notwithstanding the non obstante clause contained in s. 7(2) it was an enabling provision giving a discretion to the WTO either to value the assets of a business as a whole or valuing each asset thereof separately and in that behalf the TITO had the power to refer rnch valuation H to the Valuation Officer under s. l 6A ...... " BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORS. v. COMMISSIONER OF 609 WEALTH TAX [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 21. Before this Court the appellants had raised two submissions. A The second submission as noticed by this Court itself at page 490 of the judgment is as follows:

" ...... Secondly. counsel has urged that a~·suming that appellant No.2 .~ interest(as a karta of his HUF) in appellant No.I ~'.firm is exigible to the wealth-tax under the Act. the B valuation of such interest being governed by s. 7(2)(a) of the Act read with 1:2A of the Wealth-tax Rules. 1957, it is not open to the WTO to refer the valuation of specific house properties belonging to the firm to the Valuation Officers under s.16A of the Act; in fact. according to him, the ·c valuation of the assets of the partnership business of · appellant No.I as a whole having regard to its halance-sheets for the conceri1ed years ought to have been undertaken by the WTO and as such the book values of the house prope1·ties as appearing in the balance·sheets ought to have been accepted hy him and. therefore, the reference D made by the WTO to Valuation Officers as well as the notices issued hy the latter. heiilg incompetent and unjustified in latt; are liable to be quashed. For the reasons which we shall ·presently .indicate neither of the contentions has any substance and both are liable to be rejei:ted. ..... " . . E 22. This Court after considering the above submission as well as provisions of the Act including Section 7 ofWcalth Tax Act, 1957 laid down following at page 495:

"...... On a fair reading of the aforesaid provisions it will. appear clear that the primary method of determining the F · value of a~sets for the purposes of the Act is the one indicated in s.7(1). inasmuch as it provides that the value of any assets. other than cash. for the purposes oi this Acts hall be estimated to he its n:zarket price on the valuation date. Then comes suh-s.(2) which provides that in the case of a business for ·. which accounis are maintained by the assessee regularly the G WTO may. instead of determining separately the valuation of each asset held by the assessee in such business. determine the net value. of the business as a whole having regard to the balance sheet of such business as 011 the· valuation date and making such aqjustment therein as 1iiay H 610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 14S.C.R. A he prescribed. It is -true that suh-s.(2) commences with a non ohstante clause. hut even so. the provision itself is an enabling one conferring discretion on the WTO to determine the net value of the assets of the husiness as a whole having regard lo its halance sheets as on the valuation date. instead of proceeding under suh-s.(l). Jn other words. it is optional B for the WTO to resort to either of the methods even in the case where the net value of the business carried on by the assessee is to he determined. ..... ,.

23. Further it was laid down by this Court that "this is apart from the position that the resort to Section 7(2) itself is discretionary and c optional. the provision being an enabling one". This Court thus has categorically laid down that resort to Section 7(2)(a) is discretionary and enabling provision to Wealth Tax Officer to adopt the method as laid down in Section 7(2)(a) for a running business but the above enabling power cannot be held as obligation or shackles on right ·of Assessing D Officer to adopt an appropriate method. In the present case reference was made to the Departmental Valuer by Assessing Officer under Section 7(3). Thus there is a conscious decision of the Assessing Officer to obtain the report from the Departmental Valuer. The above conscious decision itself contains the decision of Assessing Officer not to resort to Section 7(2)(a). The Valuation report of Departmental Valuer has been E received which has been relied by the Assessing Officer for assessing the assessee in the relevant year. We, thus, do not find,, any en-or in the order of the Assessing Officer in adopting the land and building method by making a reference to Departmental Valuer to value the property on the said method. The Appellate Authority has considered in paragraph F 17 of the judgment the objection of asscsscc against the land and building method and repelled the same by the following reasons:

"17. i) The other objection which has he en vehemently stressed is against the valuation of Alpana Theatre by applying land and building method. In this connection. it G may not he an unwarranted repetition to state that Alpana Cinema was purchased by the firm MIS GD. & Sons in semi finished condition from Mis Gill and Bros. Asa/ Ali Road, New Delhi and thereafter it has been uninterruptedly used by the firm for film exhibition. What has. therefore, to be appreciated is that the property in question has been used H BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORS. v. COMMISSIONER OF 611 WEALTH TAX [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] hy the owners without any adverse riders which enjoin a A property_ ((it is let out. It has thus to he taken into account that the firm owning this theatre had no encumbrances in case it decided to dispose it off at any moment. This factor is of great consequence while arriving at fair Market value. At one point. it has also hee11 agitated hy the appellant that B the land over which the Cinema building is situated could not he used for any purpose other than as Cinema Building.

hence it was 11ot proper for the Valuation Officer to consider it as a11 open piece of land and value it likewise. This objection if of no avail because the appella11t .~ claim beaten from the very reasoning he has given. To make the matter C more than elem; it may he remarked that it is a privilege to get a licence for film exhibition on an urban land. Such land use i~ on(J! conducive to raise the value and odes not in any way depreciate its value as has been wrongly assumed hy the appell~nt. " D 24. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that reasons given by !TAT for holding that income capitalisation method is a more appropriate method has not been adverted to by the High Court. We have perused the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has observed that once it is accepted that the property is uscablc only as Cinema building Ethen its method of valuation has to be.necessarily different rromthe one normally adopted in the ease of buildings which are capable of being used for other commercial pu11wscs. The mere fact that the building is only for the use of Cinema exhibition docs not in any manner diminish the marketable price. At the relevant period uses of building as running Cinema were no less valuable. The finding has been returned oy the F Appellate Authority that it has not been further challenged that the building was self-occupied and in possession of asscssce with no encumbrances.

25. lt is true that the High Court in so many words had not adverted to the reasons given by the ITAT. However, the High Court has expressed opinion that Wealth Tax Officer was justified in adopting the land and G building method. One of the reasons given by the High Court is that if there is Joss in the business or in other words there is negative income, it cannot be possible to say that the property in question has no marketable value. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the relevant year the income was earned. H - 612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A 26. It is relevant to point out that the Appellate Authority in its judgment has observed that there was loss shown by asscsscc himself in the year 1969-70. In paragraph 17 sub-paragraph (iv) following has been observed by the Appellate Authority: "iv) .... Even in the case of the appellant there is a returned B loss of Rs.1.16.8451- in the.first assessmei1t year i.e. 1969- 70. Thus if income capitalisation method is applied in such cases where the assessee may have unfortunately suffered losses in the initial years, the valuation of an asset will workout to a negative figure. This will be certainly a situation c far from reality and not in any way the intention of the legislature while directing in Section 7 of the W.T. Act for taking the fair market value of an asset. "

27. The above circumstances taken by the High Court cannot be said to be irrelevant which apprehensions were duly found proved by the facts as noticed by the Appellate Authority. D 28. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in the event there are more than one methods of valuation of an asset of an assessec, the method under which the valuation is in favour of 'assessee has to be accepted. He has relied on the judgment of this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta E vs. Mis. Vegetables Products Ltd., (1973) 1 SCC 442. This Court in paragraph 6 of the judgment has laid down the following: "6. There is no doubt that the acceptance of one or the other interpretation sought to be placed 011 Section 271 (l)(a)(i) by the parties would lead to some inconvenient result. but F the duty of the court is to read the section, understand its language and give effect to the same. If the language is plain, the fact that the consequence of giving effect to it may lead to some absurd result is not a factor to he taken into account · in interpreting a provision. It is for the Legislature to step in and remove the absurdity. On the other hand, if two G reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. This is a well accepted rule of construction recognised by this Court in several of its decisions. Hence all that we have to see is. what is the true effect of the H

BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORS. v. COMMISSIONER OF· 6I3 WEALTH TAX [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] language employed in Section 27/(l)(a)(i). If we.find that A. · 1a11guage to be ambiguous or capable of more meanings than one. then we have to adopt that interpretation which favours the assessee. more particularly so because the provision relates to imposition o.f'penalty. ·· 29. The proposition which was laid down bY. this Court was that if B two reasonable constructions of taxing statute are possible, that construction which favours the assesscc must be adopted. The above proposition cannot be read to mean that under two methods of valuation if the value-which is favourable to assesscc should be adopted. Herc in .. the present case,.the provisions ofSei::tion 7 arc neither ambiguous nor lead to two constructions. The construction of Section 7 is clear as has C already been elaborately considered by this Court in the judgment of this Court in Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers (supra). 30. The Wealth Tax Officer having referred the Departmental Valuer to value ,the property, in consequent to which reference for valuation report having already.been received on 26.07.1977 which has D relied in the assessment. Objections to the. valuation report were considered by the Appellate Authority and having been rejected, we do not find any fault with the assessment made by the Wealth Tax Officer. · We are of the view that the High Court did not commit any error in interfering with the order ofITAT. E

31. In view of the foregoing discussions all the appeals are dismissed. Divya Pandey Appeals dismiss.ed.

[2017) 14 S.C.R. 597 BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORS. A v. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (Civil Appeal No.3836 of201 l) OCTOBER 13, 2017 B IA. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] Wealth Tax Act. 195 7 - ss. 7 and 16-A - Valuation of asset -Method of valuation - Assessees-appellants were partners in a firm - One of the assets of the partnership firm was a Cinema building - C Assessing officer made a reference u/s. J 6A to the Department Valuation Officer for valuation of Cinema .building - On the basis thereof. Assessing officer assessed the Cinema building adopting the land and building method - Appellate Authority affirmed the assessment made by Assessing Officer - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (!TAT) accepted the case of the assesses that the proper · D basis for valuing the Cinema building .was income capitalization meth~d - Revenue filed reference application - High Court on reference answered the questions against .the assessees holding that Wealth Tax Officer was justified in adopting the land and building method - Plea of assessees be.fore Supreme Court thats. 7(2)(a) is a E non obstantc clause prescribing the inco_me capitalization method for assessing value of the assets of a running business and thus is to be applied in all cases where assessee is canying 011 a business

- Held: Wealth Tax Officer is not obliged to mandatori/y adopt the method provided in s. 7(2)(a) ·in all cases where assessee is carrying 011 a business - s. 7(2}(a) is an enabling provision and resort to it is F discretionary - Such enabling power cannot be held as obligation · or shackles on the right of Assessing Officer to adopt an appropriate method - No error found in the order of Assessing Officer in adopting the land and building method by making a reference to Departmental Valuer to value the property on the said method - G -High Court did not err in interfering with the order of !TAT. Interpretation of Statutes - Taxing Statutes - Plea of assessees that !f there are· more than methods of valuation of an asset . .then the method under which valuation is in favour of assessee must be adopted - Held: Not tenable - In the instant case. the provision,s of H 597 598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A s. 7 are neither ambiguous nor lead to two constructions - Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - s.7. Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The normal rule for valuing an asset for the purposes of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 is the estimated price which in B the opinion of Wealth Tax Officer, the asset would fetch if sold in the open market. Sub-section (2) begins with 11011 obsta11te clause. Sub-clause (a) of sub-section (2) provides that-where the assessec is carrying on a business for which accounts arc maintained by him regularly, the Wealth Tax Officer may, instead of determining c separatclv the value of each asset held by the assessce in such business, determine the net value of the assets of the business as a whole having regard to the balance-sheet of such business as on the valuation date and making such adjustment therein as may be prescribed. Further sub-section (3) again begins with 11011 obstante clause providing that where the valuation of any asset D is referred under Section 16A, the value of such asset shall be estimated to be the price which, in the opinion of the Valuation Officer, it would fetch if sold in the open market. Under Section 16A Wealth Tax Officer can·make a reference to Valuation Officer for any asset for valuation. [Paras 10-12) [604-E-H) l.2 It is true that sub-section (2) of Section 7 begins with E 11011 obstlmte clause which enables the Wealth Tax Officer to determine the net value of the assets of the business as a whole instead of determining separately the value of each asset held by the asscssce in such business. The language of sub-section (2) provides overriding power to the Wealth Tax Officer to adopt F and determine the net value of the business having regard to the balance-sheet of such business. The enabling power has been given to Wealth Tax Officer to override the normal rule of valuation of the properties that is the value which it may fetch in open market, Wealth Tax Officer can adopt in a case where he may G think it fit to adopt such methodology. The appellants' submission that the provision of Section 7(2)(a) is a stand alone provision and is to be applied in all cases where assessee is carrying on a business .is not acceptable. [Para 14) [605-G-H; 606-A-B) Commissioner of Wealth Tax. Calcutta v. Tungahadra Industries Ltd., Calcutta (1969) 2 SCC 528 : [1970] H 1 SCR 789 - relied on.

BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORS. v. COMMISSIONER OF 599 WEALTH TAX

1.3 0Ycrriding power has ·been provided to override the A normal method of valuation of property as given by sub-section · 7(1) to arm the ·Wealth T_ax Officer to adopt the method of vafoation as given in sub-section (2)(a). The purpose and object of giving overriding power is .not tO fetter the discretion. The Wealth Tax Officer is not obliged to mandatorily adopt the method B provided in Section 7(2)(a) in all cases where assessec is carrying on a business. The language of sub~scction (2)(a) docs not indicate that the provisions mandate the Wealth Tax Officer to adopt the method in all' cases of running business .. Resort to Section 7(2)(a) is discretionary and enabling provision to Wealth Tax Officer to adopt the method as laid down in Section 7(2)(a) for a running C business but such enabling power cannot be held as obligation or shackles on right of Assessing Officer to adopt an appropriate method. In the present case reference was made to the Departmental Valuer by Assessing Officer under Section 7(3). Thus there was a conscious decision of the Assessing Officer to D obtain the report from the Departmental Valuer. The said conscious decision itself contained the decision of Assessing . Officer not to resort to Section 7(2)(a). The Valuation report of Departmental Valuer was received which was relied by the Assessing Officer for assessing the assessee in the relevant year. No error is found in the order of the Assessing Officer in adopting E the land and building method by making a reference to Departmental Valuer to value the property on the said method. [Paras 15, 23.J (606-C-D; 610-C-F)

1.4 .The appellants has further submitted relying on The . Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengttl, Calcutta v. Mis. F Vegetttbles Products Ltd. that in the event there are more than one methods of' valuation of an asset of an assessee, the method under which the valuation fs in favour of asscssec has to be accepted. The proposition which "'.as laid down by this Court in that case was that if two reasonable constructions ohaxingstatute are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must G be adopted. The said proposition cannot be read to mean that under two methods of valuation if the value which is favourable to assessee should be adopted. In the. present case, the provisions of Section 7 arc· neither ambiguous nor lead to two constructions. H 600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A The construction of Section 7 is clear. [Paras 28, 29] (612-E; 613-B-C] The Commissioner of Income Tax. West Bengal. Calcutta v. Mis. Vegetables Products Ltd. (1973) 1 SCC 442 : 11973) 3 SCR 448 - held inapplicable. B State of Kera/av. PP. Hassan Koya AIR 1968 SC 1201: I1968] SCR 459 - distinguished. Juggi!al K amlapat Bankers and another v. Wealth-Tax q(Jicer. Special Circle. C-Ward. Kanpur ahd others 1984 (145) JTR 485 - relied on. C Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central) Kanpur v. Bankey Lal and others (Decision dated 21.10.2005 of Allahabad High Court in Wealth Tax Reference 39 of 1985) - referred to. Case Law Reference

D [1970) 1 SCR 789 relied on Para 15 [1968] SCR 459 distinguished Para 17 1984 (145) ITR 485 relied on Para 18 . [1973) 3 SCR 448 held inapplicable Para 28 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3836 E of2011. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2005 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Wealth Tax Reference No. 27of1991. WITH F C. A. NOS. 3837, 3839, 3838, 3840 and 3841 of2011 Ro hit Amit Sthalckar, Kamlcndra Mishra, Advs. for the Appellants. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Ms. Rashmi Malhotr'd, Rupesh Kumar, Ms. Gargi Khanna. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advs. for the Respondent. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. All these appeals raising common questions oflaw have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. The High Court vi de its separate judgments dated 21. 10.2005 decided six Wealth Tax References aggrieved by which. the H assessees have come up in the appeal. All the assessees are partners in BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORS. v. COMMISSIONER OF 601 WEALTH TAX [ASHOKBHUSHAN, J.J afirm M/s. G.D. & Sons. One of the assets of the partnership FirJ'n is a A Cinema building known as "Alpana Cinema" situate at Model Tow11, New Delhi. The question which was rcfcn-cd to the High Court for answer relates to the con-ect method of the valuation of the j1~opcrty that is Alpana Cinema for assessment under Wealth Tax Act: R'cfcrcncc of facts and proceedings in C.A. N0.3836 of2011 shall be sufficient to B decide all these appeals. .

2. Mis. G.D. & Sons of which firm the appellants are partners, purcha~ed land and building in semi-constructed condition on 04.06.1965 for a sum ofRs.8,00,000/-. The construction was completed and Cinema Theatre, Alpana started running in the premises. The Alpana Cinema cproperty was valued by assessment books of accounts. On pending assessment ofWealth Tax ofonc of the partners. the Wealth Tax Officer made a reference for valuation of the Alpana Cinema to Department Valuation Officer, New Delhi by Reference dated 29 .04.1976. Valuation Officer after inspecting the site submitted its report dated 26.04.1977 valuing the property for assessment year 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, D 1973-74 and 1974-75. Notices under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 were issued to the appellants on 30.03.1979. Assessees got the property valued by an approved Valuer adopting income capitalisation method. The assessment order was passed by the Wealth Tax Officer in March, 1983 making assessment for the period from 1970-71 to 1974-75 .. The assessment was completed as per percentage of the right of E different assessees which they have in the Firm. The Assessing Officer relied on the Valuation Report submitted by the Departmental Valuer. The assessee aggrieved by the assessment order filed appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax. The Appellate Authority by its detailed order dated 23.01.1986 ~ffirmed the assessment F made by the Assessing Otlicer on the basis of valuation by land and building method. The income capitalisation method as was relied on by the assessee was not approved.

3. The aggrieved by the different assessment orders the assessees filed Wealth Tax Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal G (ITAT), Delhi Bench, Delhi. The ITAT accepted the case of the assessee to the effect that the proper basis for valuing the Cinema building would be capitalisation of the income. The ITAT held that since the building could be used only for film exhibition and it cannot be used for any other purpose the method of its valuation has to be necessarily different from H 602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A the one no1111ally adopted in the case of buildings which are capable of being used as commercial buildings. The Revenue aggrieved by the Tribunal's order filed reference application through Department. Although, initially the same was rejected by the Tribunal, on the direction of the High Court following two questions were referred to the High Court for decision: B ''1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law for the purpose of Section 7(1) of the W/Jalth Tax Act in determining the assessee 5· interest in the partnership firm c by adopting the fair market value of the assets in question namely. the cinema building on the income mobilization basis instead of land and building method adopted by Wealth Tax Officer?

2. {f the answer to the above question is in the negative r;;nd against the assessee then what ought to he the correct fair D market value of assets in question?" 4. The High Court vi de its judgment and order dated 21. l 0.2005 answered the questions in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. The High Court held that Wealth Tax Officer was justified in adopting the land and building method. The High Court held that yield/rent .E capitalisation method would not be correct method of valuation of the property in question. The High Court relied on its decision in Wealth Tax Reference .~9 of 1985, Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central) Kanpur vs. Bankey Lal and others decided on the same day, i.e., 21.l 0.2005. The assessee aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 21.10.2005 has come up in the appeal. As noted above, in all F Wealth Tax References question was answered in favour of the Revenue. 5. We have heard Shri Rohit Amit Sthalekar, learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the Department.

6. Shri Sthalekar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that G Section 7(2)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act begins with non ohstante clause which is stand alone provision prescribing the income capitalisation method for assessing value of the assets of a running business which was applied by the ITAT. He further submits that the High Court did not controvert findings of the fact returned by the Tribunal. The Tribunal being final fact finding authority. the High Court ought not to have interfered with H BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORS. v. COMMISSIONER OF 603 WEALTH TAX [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] the order of the Tribunal. Each case is to be decide·d on its own facts A and the valuation of the property is a question of fact which having been correctly determined by the ITAT, the High Court erred in interfering with the said judgment. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in case there arc more than one method of valuing the ·property, the valuation which is in favour ofthc asscssce has to be adopted B which is a well settled rule of statutory interpretation.

7. Learned counsel for the Department refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants contends that Wealth Tax Officer has rightly followed land and building method for assessing the property. He submits that the provision of Section 7( I )(a) is an enabling C provision which gives discretion to the Wealth Tax Officer to apply the income capitalisation method in ca5e of running business, ifhe so decides. ·It is submitted that it is not mandatory for the Wealth Tax Officer to apply income capitalisation method in all cases. It is submitted that Cinema building was in the ownership and possession of the asscssec which without being any encumbrances could have easily obtained the best D price in the open market and in such cases the land and building method is appropriate method to be adopted for valuing the property. 8. Learned counselfor the parties have relied on various judgments. which shall be referred while considering their respective submissions. E 9. We need to first notice the provisions of Section 7 which faH for consideration in the present case. Section 7 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 as it stood at the relevant time reads as follows: ''7(J)Su~ject to any rules made in this beha?f. the value of any asset. other than cash, for the purposes of this Act .. shall be estimated to be the price, which in the opinion of F the H'ealth Tax Officer it wouldfelch !f sold in the open market on the valuation dated.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(l)- (a) Where the assessee is carrying oil a business for which G accounts are maintained by him regularly. the Wealth Tax Officer may. instead of determining separately the value of each asset held by the assessee in such business, determine the net value of the assets of the business as a ·~· whole having regard to the balance~sheet of such business . H 604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R·. A as on the valuation date and making such adjustment therein as may be prescribed. 1 (b) Where the assessee carrying on the ku~iness is. a company not restdent in India and a computation in accordance with clai1se(a) cannot be made by reasmi°of the absence of any 8 separate balance-sheet drawn up for the affairs of such business in India the Wealth Tax Officer may take the net value of the assets of the business in India to be that proportion of the net value of the assets of the business as a whole wherever carried on determined as aforesaid as c the income arising from the business in India during the year ending with the valuatiOn date bears to the aggregate income fimn the business wherever arising during that yea1: (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section(I).

where the valuation of any asset is referred by the Wealth Tax Officer to the Valuation Officer under Section 16-A, D the value of such asset shall be estimated to be the price which. in the opinion of the Valuation Officer. it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. " l 0. The normal rule for valuing an asset for the purposes of Wealth Tax Act is the estimated price which in the opinion of Wealth Tax Officer, ·E the asset would fetch if sold in the open market. Sub-section (2) begins . with non obstante clause. Sub-clause (a) of sub-section (2) provides that where the assessce is carrying on a business for which accounts are maintained by him regularly, the Wealth Tax Officer may, instead of detennining separately the value of each asset held by the assessee in such business, detennine the net value of the assets of the business as a F whole having regard to the balance-sheet of such business as on the . valuation date and making such adjustment therein as may be prescribed. l I. Further sub-section (3) again begins with non obstante clause providing that where the valuation of any asset is referred under Section l 6A, the value of such asset shall be estimated to be the price which, in G the opinion of the Valuation Officer, it would fetch if sold in the open market. 12. Under Section t6A Wealth Tax Officer can make a reference to Valuation Officer for any asset for valuation. Section l 6A sub-clause (I) is as follows: H "

• BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORS. v. COMMISSIONER OF 605 WEALTH TAX [ASHOK BHlJSHAN, J.] "16A Reference to Valuation Officer. A (l)'For the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment in respect of any assessment year commencing· before the date of coining iilto force of this section) under this Act. where under the provisions of section 7 read with the rules made under this Act or. as the case may be, the B rules made in Schedule Ill, the market value of any a5set is to be taken into account in such assessment. the Assessing Officer mcry refer the valuation of any asset to a Valuation Officer-:- (a) in a case where the value of the asset as returned is in C a1;corda11ce with the estimate lnade by a registered valuer. if the Assessing Officer is of opinion that the value so returned is less than its fair market value; (b) in any other case, if the Assessing Officer is of opinion- (i) that the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value D <?f the asset as returned by more than such percentage of the value of the asset as returned or by more than such amount as may be prescribed in this behalf: or .

(ii) that having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circtimstances, it is necessary so to do." E 13.Prcscnt is a case where Assessing Officer has made a ' reference for Alpana Cinema on 29 .04.1976. It has also coine on the · record that the order of reference to the Valuation Ofticer was challenged · · by the assesscc by filing: a \\.Tit petition in Delhi High Court. The Appellate Authority in its order had noted about the challenge to the reference F .made to the Valuation Ofticcr by the Assessing Officer. There is nothing on record that the Delhi High Court interfered with order of Assessing Officer referring the Departmental Valuer to value the Alpana Cinema. 14. It is true that sub-section (2) of Section 7 begins with non ohstante clause which enables the Wealth Tax Ofticer to determine the G .'net value of the assets of the business as a whole instead of determining separately the value of each asset held by the asscssce in such business. The language of sub-section (2) provides overriding power to the Wealth .Tax Officer to adopt and detcm1ine the net value of the business having regard to the balance-sheet of such business. The enabling power has H 606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A been given to Wealth Tax Offieer'to ovenide the normal rule of valuation of the properties that is the value which it may fetch in open market, Wealth Tax Officer can adopt in a case where he may think it fit to adopt such methodology. The appellants' submission is that the provision of Section 7(2)(a) is a stand alone provision and is to be applied in all B cases where asscssce is canying on a business. We do not agree with ·the above submission. 15. Overriding power has been provided to ovenide the normal method of valuation of property as given by sub-section 7(1) to arm the Wealth Tax Officer to adopt the method of valuation as given in sub-section (2)(a). The purpose and object of giving oveniding power is not c to fetter the discretion. The Wealth Tax Officer is not obliged to mandatorily adopt the method provided in Section 7(2)(a) in all cases where assessee is canying on a business. The language of sub-section (2)(a) does not indicate that the provisions mandate the Wealth Tax Officer to adopt the method in all cases ofrunning business. Section 7 of D the Act has also come for interpretation before this Court in large number of cases. It is useful to refer to some of the cases. In Commissioner of Wea/tit Tax, Calcutta vs. T1111gabadra btdustries Ltd., Calcutta, 1969 (2) SCC528, this Court had occasion to consider Section 7 of the Act. In the aforesaid ca~e the following question came for consideration before the Court: E

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. for the pwpose of determining the net value of the assets of the assessee under Section 7(2) of the Wealth-tax Act. 195 7 the Tribunal was right in directing that the written down value of the fixed assets of the assessee should he F adopted as the value thereof. instead of their balance-sheet value?" 16. In paragraph 5 while considering Section 7 following was observed: "5 ...... ln our opinion there is justification for this G argumelll. Under suh-section(l) of Section 7 of the Act the Wealth-tax Officer is authorised 10 estimate for the purpose of determining the value of any asset, the price which it would · fetch, if sold in the open market on the valuation date. But this rule in the case of a running business may ojien he H inconvenient and may not yield a true estimate of rhe net BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORS. v. COMMISSIONER OF 607 WEALTH TAX [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] value of' the total assets of the business. The Legislature has. A therefo1·e. provided in sub-section(2)(a) that where the assessee is carrying on a business for which accounts are maintained by him regularZv. the Wealth-tax Officer may determine the net value of the assets of the business as a whole. having regard to the bala1'f'r:e-sheet of such business B as on the valuation date and make such adjustments therein as the circumstances of the case may require ...... "

17. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on State of Kera/a vs. P.P. Hassan Koya, AIR 1968 SC 1201. The above case was a case of valuation of property in reference to Land Acquisition cAct, 1894. In the aforesaid case following observation was made in paragraphs 6 and 7: "6...... An instance of a sale which is pi·oximate in time to the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in re5pect of land similarly situate and with D similar advantages and which is proved to be a transaction between a willing vendor and a willing purchaser vFozildfonn a reliable guide for determining the market value. The value which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from a willing purchaser in respect of a .house generally depends upon a varie_ty of circumstances including ihe nature E of the construction. its age situation. the amenities available. its special advantages and a host of other circumstances. When the proper~y sold is land with building. it is often d![ficult to secure reliable evidence of instances of sale of similar land~ with buildings proximate in· time to the date of ·the notification under Section 4. Therefore the method which F is gc11eral~v resorted to in dete1mining the value of the land with buildings especially those used for business purposes. is the method of capitalization of return actually received or which might reasonably be received.from the land and the buildings. G

7. That method was rightly adopted by the trial court and the High Court. The unit under acquisition is used for business purposes and has a prominent situation in the town of Calicut. There was clear evidence about the rental of the- ~ building. and the trial .court proceeded to capitalize the net H 608 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A annual rental, having regard to the rate of return of 13 112 per cent from gilt-edged securities, by multiplying it by 35 times. The High Court has slightly reduced the multiple. " 18. The above observation made by the Court was general observation not in the context of Section 7 of the Act. The method of B valuing the building property on the basis of rent capitalisation is no doubt provided in various statutes especially in the cases ofrent fixation. The above observation does not help the appellants in the present case. ·

19. More appropriate judgment of this Court which is on the facts of the present case is the judgment in Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers C and another vs. Wealth-Tax Officer, Special Circle .• C-Ward, Kanpur and others, 1984 (145) JTR 485. In the above, case this Court had occasion to consider and inte1vret the provisions of Section 7. The Wealth Tax Officer had made a reference to Valuation Officer for valuing certain buildings belonging to the appellant Firm. The appellant by means of writ petition challenged the reference made by the Assessing Officer to the D Departmental Valuer for valuing the property. Two of the submissions which were made before the High Court as quoted in the judgment arc as below: " ...... (3)the interest of appellant No.2 in appellant No.I-firm had to be valued in accordance with r.2 of the W.T.Rules, E 1957. and hence s. J6A of the Act had no application; (4) the valuation of the concerned buildings forming part of the assets of the business of appellant No.I-firm had to be determined in accordance with the commercial principles · · under s. 7(2)(a) and not under s. 7(1) of the Act. and ....... " F 20. The High Court considered the submissions of the parties and by rejecting the above two submissions held following:

"....... T¥ith regard to the third andfourth contentions the High Court held that r.2. s. 7 ands. J 6A(l)(b}(ii) had to be read harmoniously and 1:2 did 11ot exclude the application of ss. 7 G a11d J6A for valuing an asset of a partner in a partnership firm and that notwithstanding the non obstante clause contained in s. 7(2) it was an enabling provision giving a discretion to the WTO either to value the assets of a business as a whole or valuing each asset thereof separately and in that behalf the TITO had the power to refer rnch valuation H to the Valuation Officer under s. l 6A ...... " BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORS. v. COMMISSIONER OF 609 WEALTH TAX [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 21. Before this Court the appellants had raised two submissions. A The second submission as noticed by this Court itself at page 490 of the judgment is as follows:

" ...... Secondly. counsel has urged that a~·suming that appellant No.2 .~ interest(as a karta of his HUF) in appellant No.I ~'.firm is exigible to the wealth-tax under the Act. the B valuation of such interest being governed by s. 7(2)(a) of the Act read with 1:2A of the Wealth-tax Rules. 1957, it is not open to the WTO to refer the valuation of specific house properties belonging to the firm to the Valuation Officers under s.16A of the Act; in fact. according to him, the ·c valuation of the assets of the partnership business of · appellant No.I as a whole having regard to its halance-sheets for the conceri1ed years ought to have been undertaken by the WTO and as such the book values of the house prope1·ties as appearing in the balance·sheets ought to have been accepted hy him and. therefore, the reference D made by the WTO to Valuation Officers as well as the notices issued hy the latter. heiilg incompetent and unjustified in latt; are liable to be quashed. For the reasons which we shall ·presently .indicate neither of the contentions has any substance and both are liable to be rejei:ted. ..... " . . E 22. This Court after considering the above submission as well as provisions of the Act including Section 7 ofWcalth Tax Act, 1957 laid down following at page 495:

"...... On a fair reading of the aforesaid provisions it will. appear clear that the primary method of determining the F · value of a~sets for the purposes of the Act is the one indicated in s.7(1). inasmuch as it provides that the value of any assets. other than cash. for the purposes oi this Acts hall be estimated to he its n:zarket price on the valuation date. Then comes suh-s.(2) which provides that in the case of a business for ·. which accounis are maintained by the assessee regularly the G WTO may. instead of determining separately the valuation of each asset held by the assessee in such business. determine the net value. of the business as a whole having regard to the balance sheet of such business as 011 the· valuation date and making such aqjustment therein as 1iiay H 610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 14S.C.R. A he prescribed. It is -true that suh-s.(2) commences with a non ohstante clause. hut even so. the provision itself is an enabling one conferring discretion on the WTO to determine the net value of the assets of the husiness as a whole having regard lo its halance sheets as on the valuation date. instead of proceeding under suh-s.(l). Jn other words. it is optional B for the WTO to resort to either of the methods even in the case where the net value of the business carried on by the assessee is to he determined. ..... ,.

23. Further it was laid down by this Court that "this is apart from the position that the resort to Section 7(2) itself is discretionary and c optional. the provision being an enabling one". This Court thus has categorically laid down that resort to Section 7(2)(a) is discretionary and enabling provision to Wealth Tax Officer to adopt the method as laid down in Section 7(2)(a) for a running business but the above enabling power cannot be held as obligation or shackles on right ·of Assessing D Officer to adopt an appropriate method. In the present case reference was made to the Departmental Valuer by Assessing Officer under Section 7(3). Thus there is a conscious decision of the Assessing Officer to obtain the report from the Departmental Valuer. The above conscious decision itself contains the decision of Assessing Officer not to resort to Section 7(2)(a). The Valuation report of Departmental Valuer has been E received which has been relied by the Assessing Officer for assessing the assessee in the relevant year. We, thus, do not find,, any en-or in the order of the Assessing Officer in adopting the land and building method by making a reference to Departmental Valuer to value the property on the said method. The Appellate Authority has considered in paragraph F 17 of the judgment the objection of asscsscc against the land and building method and repelled the same by the following reasons:

"17. i) The other objection which has he en vehemently stressed is against the valuation of Alpana Theatre by applying land and building method. In this connection. it G may not he an unwarranted repetition to state that Alpana Cinema was purchased by the firm MIS GD. & Sons in semi finished condition from Mis Gill and Bros. Asa/ Ali Road, New Delhi and thereafter it has been uninterruptedly used by the firm for film exhibition. What has. therefore, to be appreciated is that the property in question has been used H BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORS. v. COMMISSIONER OF 611 WEALTH TAX [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] hy the owners without any adverse riders which enjoin a A property_ ((it is let out. It has thus to he taken into account that the firm owning this theatre had no encumbrances in case it decided to dispose it off at any moment. This factor is of great consequence while arriving at fair Market value. At one point. it has also hee11 agitated hy the appellant that B the land over which the Cinema building is situated could not he used for any purpose other than as Cinema Building.

hence it was 11ot proper for the Valuation Officer to consider it as a11 open piece of land and value it likewise. This objection if of no avail because the appella11t .~ claim beaten from the very reasoning he has given. To make the matter C more than elem; it may he remarked that it is a privilege to get a licence for film exhibition on an urban land. Such land use i~ on(J! conducive to raise the value and odes not in any way depreciate its value as has been wrongly assumed hy the appell~nt. " D 24. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that reasons given by !TAT for holding that income capitalisation method is a more appropriate method has not been adverted to by the High Court. We have perused the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has observed that once it is accepted that the property is uscablc only as Cinema building Ethen its method of valuation has to be.necessarily different rromthe one normally adopted in the ease of buildings which are capable of being used for other commercial pu11wscs. The mere fact that the building is only for the use of Cinema exhibition docs not in any manner diminish the marketable price. At the relevant period uses of building as running Cinema were no less valuable. The finding has been returned oy the F Appellate Authority that it has not been further challenged that the building was self-occupied and in possession of asscssce with no encumbrances.

25. lt is true that the High Court in so many words had not adverted to the reasons given by the ITAT. However, the High Court has expressed opinion that Wealth Tax Officer was justified in adopting the land and G building method. One of the reasons given by the High Court is that if there is Joss in the business or in other words there is negative income, it cannot be possible to say that the property in question has no marketable value. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the relevant year the income was earned. H - 612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A 26. It is relevant to point out that the Appellate Authority in its judgment has observed that there was loss shown by asscsscc himself in the year 1969-70. In paragraph 17 sub-paragraph (iv) following has been observed by the Appellate Authority: "iv) .... Even in the case of the appellant there is a returned B loss of Rs.1.16.8451- in the.first assessmei1t year i.e. 1969- 70. Thus if income capitalisation method is applied in such cases where the assessee may have unfortunately suffered losses in the initial years, the valuation of an asset will workout to a negative figure. This will be certainly a situation c far from reality and not in any way the intention of the legislature while directing in Section 7 of the W.T. Act for taking the fair market value of an asset. "

27. The above circumstances taken by the High Court cannot be said to be irrelevant which apprehensions were duly found proved by the facts as noticed by the Appellate Authority. D 28. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in the event there are more than one methods of valuation of an asset of an assessec, the method under which the valuation is in favour of 'assessee has to be accepted. He has relied on the judgment of this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta E vs. Mis. Vegetables Products Ltd., (1973) 1 SCC 442. This Court in paragraph 6 of the judgment has laid down the following: "6. There is no doubt that the acceptance of one or the other interpretation sought to be placed 011 Section 271 (l)(a)(i) by the parties would lead to some inconvenient result. but F the duty of the court is to read the section, understand its language and give effect to the same. If the language is plain, the fact that the consequence of giving effect to it may lead to some absurd result is not a factor to he taken into account · in interpreting a provision. It is for the Legislature to step in and remove the absurdity. On the other hand, if two G reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. This is a well accepted rule of construction recognised by this Court in several of its decisions. Hence all that we have to see is. what is the true effect of the H

BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORS. v. COMMISSIONER OF· 6I3 WEALTH TAX [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] language employed in Section 27/(l)(a)(i). If we.find that A. · 1a11guage to be ambiguous or capable of more meanings than one. then we have to adopt that interpretation which favours the assessee. more particularly so because the provision relates to imposition o.f'penalty. ·· 29. The proposition which was laid down bY. this Court was that if B two reasonable constructions of taxing statute are possible, that construction which favours the assesscc must be adopted. The above proposition cannot be read to mean that under two methods of valuation if the value-which is favourable to assesscc should be adopted. Herc in .. the present case,.the provisions ofSei::tion 7 arc neither ambiguous nor lead to two constructions. The construction of Section 7 is clear as has C already been elaborately considered by this Court in the judgment of this Court in Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers (supra). 30. The Wealth Tax Officer having referred the Departmental Valuer to value ,the property, in consequent to which reference for valuation report having already.been received on 26.07.1977 which has D relied in the assessment. Objections to the. valuation report were considered by the Appellate Authority and having been rejected, we do not find any fault with the assessment made by the Wealth Tax Officer. · We are of the view that the High Court did not commit any error in interfering with the order ofITAT. E

31. In view of the foregoing discussions all the appeals are dismissed. Divya Pandey Appeals dismiss.ed.