1987 (3) TMI 140 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment Year, Debt Owed, Deduction In Respect, Hindu Succession Act, Immovable Property, Movable Property, Net Wealth, Settlement Commission, Valuation Date

Issues Involved:

1. Valuation of Neelbagh Palace under Section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
2. Deduction of 1/6th share belonging to Shri D.P. Singh from HUF's net asset.
3. Liability under the head 'Balrampur Tenantry War Loan'.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Valuation of Neelbagh Palace under Section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957:

The primary issue was whether the value of Neelbagh Palace should be adopted at Rs. 3,00,000 as determined by the Settlement Commission for the assessment year 1971-72. The assessee argued that the WTO was bound under Section 7(4) to adopt this value. However, the WTO found the valuation unreasonable given the size and land area of the Palace. The CIT(A) confirmed the WTO's order, excluding a large chunk of land from the purview of Section 7(4) of the Act.

The Tribunal noted the historical valuations, including the Estate Duty Order where the Palace was valued at Rs. 3,77,900, later reduced to Rs. 1,84,000 by the ITAT. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument, stating that the valuation for 1971-72 should not be adopted for 1981-82 due to the lapse of time and potential increase in property value. The Tribunal upheld the WTO's valuation of Rs. 4,00,000, adding Rs. 1,00,000 for the land appurtenant to the Palace.

2. Deduction of 1/6th share belonging to Shri D.P. Singh from HUF's net asset:

The WTO refused to deduct 1/6th share belonging to Shri D.P. Singh from the HUF's net asset, while the CIT(A) directed the WTO to deduct this share, following the Settlement Commission's decision. The Tribunal reviewed the family history and previous assessments, noting that the family consisted of Late Maharaja Pateshwari Prasad Singh, his wife, and the adopted son, Shri D.P. Singh. After the Maharaja's death, the HUF claimed that his share devolved on his wife and D.P. Singh individually.

The Tribunal referenced the Mysore High Court's decision in CIT v. Smt. Nagarathnamma, which held that a deceased coparcener's interest devolves by succession, not survivorship. However, the Tribunal emphasized that without a factual partition, the property remains HUF property for tax purposes. The Supreme Court's decision in Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad (HUF) v. CIT supported this view. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the WTO's decision, rejecting the deduction of 1/6th share.

3. Liability under the head 'Balrampur Tenantry War Loan':

The assessee claimed a liability of Rs. 5,82,377 under the 'Balrampur Tenantry War Loan', asserting that the loan was raised from farmers and acknowledged by creating a Trust Deed. The WTO rejected this claim, citing reasons such as the claim being barred by limitations, lack of records, and the Trust Deed being created after the valuation date.

The Tribunal agreed with the WTO, noting that the loans were taken around 40 years ago, and there was no individual acknowledgment of these liabilities. The creation of the Trust Deed did not validate the liability as it was created long after the valuation date and did not involve creditor-farmers as parties. The Tribunal doubted the legal enforceability of the agreement against the assessee, thus setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and restoring the WTO's decision to disallow the liability.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the valuation of Neelbagh Palace and the deduction of 1/6th share of Shri D.P. Singh. It allowed the department's appeal, upholding the WTO's decision to disallow the liability under the 'Balrampur Tenantry War Loan'.

← Previous Next →