9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... West Bengal. Under the Act, the assessee was entitled to receive compensation in respect of the lands. The mode of determination and payment of compensation has been prescribed under sections 16 and 17 read with section 23 of the Act. In completing the assessments of the assessee to wealth-tax for the assessment years abovementioned (in respect of which the relevant valuation dates were April 14, 1957, April 14, 1958, and April 14, 1959, respectively), the Wealth-tax Officer required the assessee to furnish particulars of the compensation due from the Government. The assessee was unable to furnish such particulars but stated that his agricultural income from the lands used to be assessed at Rs. 1,00,000 per annum and that the taxes thereon amounted to Rs. 20,000 per annum. Taking the net agricultural income at Rs. 80,000 and applying the provisions of section 17(1) of the Act, the Wealth-tax Officer estimated the compensation payable to the assessee at Rs. 3,40,000. Deducting therefrom the interim compensation already received by the assessee, the amount of compensation due to him was estimated at Rs. 3,25,600 as on April 14, 1957, Rs. 3,00,000 as on April 14, 1958, and Rs. 3,00,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment, the attention of the court had been drawn to the decision of this court in the case of Pandit Lakshmi Kant Jha v. CWT [1973] 90 ITR 97. The court, however, observed that the said decision of the Supreme Court had been concerned with the Bihar Act, and that it had been pointed out in the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Mahatab's case [1970] 78 ITR 214 that the provisions, of the Bihar Act were different materially on this aspect from the provisions of the Bengal Act. The court, therefore, Concluded that the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Mahatab's case [1970] 78 ITR 214 should be followed. Accordingly, the High Court answered the question referred to it in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax has preferred these appeals. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that the decision of this court in Pandit Lakshmi Kant Jha's case [1973] 90 ITR 97 squarely governs the issue in the present case. In that case, the assessee was the former Maharajadhiraja of Darbhanga. For the assessment year 1957-58, the relevant valuation date for which was March 31, 1957, the Wealth-tax Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instance, that the compensation payable to the assessee under the Bihar Land Reforms Act did not constitute an asset as can be taken into account in computing the total wealth of the assessee. In the alternative, it was urged that, in computing the value of the compensation, the Tribunal should have taken the value to be 50 per cent. and not 65 per cent. of the amount of compensation. This court held that neither of these contentions was well-founded. After setting out the provisions of the Bihar Act, the court concluded (at page 107) : "The assessee, in our opinion, was vested with a right to get compensation immediately his land was vested in the State. Section 2(e) of the Act defines 'asset' to include property of every description, movable or immovable, but does not include certain categories of property with which we are not concerned. The word 'property', as mentioned by this court in the case of Ahmed G. H. Ariff v. CWT [1970] 76 ITR 471 is a term of the widest import and, subject to any limitation which the context may require, it signifies every possible interest which a person can clearly hold and enjoy. The definition of the 'assets' as given in section 2(e) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case. He also submits that the principle enunciated in the above decision has been reaffirmed in Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. Asst. CED [1980] 122 ITR 21 (SC) where Pandit Lakshmi Kant Jha's case [1973] 90 ITR 97 (SC) has been specifically followed and also in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab [1985] 1 SCC 231 ; AIR 1985 SC 382. We are of the opinion that the contention of the appellant is well founded. In our opinion, the decision in Pandit Lakshmi Kant Jha's case [1973] 90 ITR 97 (SC) clearly covers, the principal issue in the present case as to whether the value of the right possessed by the assesee to receive compensation for the acquisition of his lands is an asset which has to be evaluated and included in his net wealth as on the relevant valuation dates. Only two grounds have been urged before us to distinguish the earlier decision in Pandit Lakshmi. Kant Jha's case [1973] 90 ITR 97 (SC). The first is the one referred to by us earlier which has also been touched upon by the High Court. The High Court both in the present case and in Mahatab's case [1970] 78 ITR 214 (Cal) which has been followed therein, has taken the view that the provisions of the West Beng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal erred in holding that there was no asset the value of which could be included in the net wealth of the assessee by reference to the lands of the assessee which vested in the State Government. The question referred in the present case to the High Court, which has been extracted earlier, was, however, of much wider amplitude. It not only raised the question whether there was any asset capable of inclusion in the net wealth but also the question as to whether the sums estimated by the Wealth-tax Officer on this account can be included in the net wealth of the assessee as on the relevant dates. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court have touched upon this aspect in view of their conclusion that there was no "asset" at all capable of inclusion in the estate. Since we have come to the conclusion that the right to receive compensation in respect of the acquired lands is an asset which should be included in the net wealth, it will now become necessary to determine the second question whether the valuation of this asset at the figures taken by the Wealth-tax Officer is correct or not. This is a question which will have to be considered and decided by the Tribunal while disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
