9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner) to show cause as to why additions/disallowances on the following points be not made in his wealth : "1. Land and building tax liability of Rs. 40,62,000 wrongly allowed as it relates to the assets which are already claimed and allowed as exempted assets, hence, not admissible as per the provisions of rile 2(m). 2. The value of land requisitioned by the defence on annual compensation was not included in the net wealth due to claim of wrong exemption under section 5(1)(iii). 3. Annual compensation received/receivable by the assessee on the said land as per point (2) above." After hearing the parties, the net wealth of the assessee (petitioner) was computed as under : Net wealth assessed as per order under section 16(3)135 &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43,55,520 ------------ Net wealth 8,80,35,458 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose, as such the reassessment order (annexure 6) is liable to be quashed. Per contra, Sarvashri R. B. Mathur and Ashok Gaur appearing for the Revenue (WT & IT Departments), laid much stress or, the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner against the impugned reassessment order and further it has been contended that admittedly the petitioner has concomitantly preferred an appeal against the self same reassessment order (annexure 6) before the Commissioner (Appeals), Wealth-tax, Ajmer, who had remanded the matter for fresh decision while setting aside the impugned order, itself, and since the matter is sub judice before respondent No. 2 thereby this writ petition is an illusory attempt having no cause of action to approach this court, inasmuch as there being disputed questions of fact involved in this petition, the same cannot be agitated in this petition by invoking the writ jurisdiction. Various decisions have been cited in this regard. As regards the challenge to the impugned assessment order so also the petitioner's claim for exemption, it has been contended by the Revenue that the exemption from wealth-tax as contemplated under section 5(1)(iii) of the Wealth- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be included in the net wealth of the assessee- . . . (iii) anyone building in the occupation of a Ruler, being a building which immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, was his official residence by virtue of a declaration by the Central Government under paragraph 13 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, or paragraph 15 of the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950." The significant words in the afore quoted provisions are one, palace in the occupation of a Ruler used in clause (19A) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act whereas, "one building in the occupation of a Ruler" used in section 5(1)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act. Thus, under section 10(19A) of the Income-tax Act only one palace in occupation has been exempted. It seems that similarly in the Wealth-tax Act instead of "palace" they have used the words "one building in the occupation of a Ruler" which has been exempted from tax. Under both the quoted provisions, it should be a 'palace" or "building" which under the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, was declared as an 'Official residence". Even under the Merged States (Taxation Conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned, there is a direct decision in CIT v. Bharatchandra Banjdeo [1985] 154 ITR 236 (MP). It was held therein that it is not possible to split up one palace into parts for granting exemption only to that part in self-occupation of the ex-Ruler as his official residence and to deny the benefit of exemption to the other portion of the palace rented out by the ruler, since the entire palace is declared as his official residence. Accordingly, it was held that even if only a part of the palace is in the self-occupation of the former ruler and the rest has been let out, the exemption available under section 10(19A) will be available to the entire palace. No decision taking a contrary, view has been cited before us. We do not find any good ground to depart from that view, when the view taken in that decision is undoubtedly a plausible view. In the case of a taxing statute, a plausible view in favour of the assessee should be preferred in these circumstances. Following that decision, the first question has to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee." In Mohammad Ali Khan v. CWT [1997] 224 ITR 672 (SC) cited by the Revenue, the apex court dismissing the appeal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en if only a part of a palace or building is in the self-occupation of a Ruler and the rest has been let out, the exemption will be available for the entire palace. I take support from the afore quoted dictum of law laid down in similar circumstances for the self-same building known as Ummed Bhawan Palace which is the subject-matter here also and accordingly in my considered view it is indefeasible to split up one palace or building into parts for granting exemption only to that part in self-occupation of the ex-Ruler as his official residence while to deny the benefit of exemption to the other portion of the palace or building let out by the Ruler and especially when the building and its appurtenant land is requisitioned for defence purpose by the Central Government which was beyond the control of the petitioner against recurring compensation since the entire palace and building along with its appurtenant land is declared as his official residence. Moreover, for the self-same subject-matter palace or building known as Ummed Bhawan Palace, the respondents taxing authority have been continuing to grant exemption not only under the Income-tax Act but also the Wealth-tax Act in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed reassessment is concerned has got alternative remedy or availed of it by way of preferring appeal, may be that has been decided in his favour by way of remand. Hence, I find no merit in any of the contentions raised by the Revenue in this regard. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusions, the Revenue is bound to close the matter wherever pending either before the assessing or appellate authority holding that the reopening of the assessment already concluded by dint of decisions of this court in exercise of jurisdiction under the taxation law is not permissible either under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act or section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act. Since the petitioner himself withdrew the amendment application, hence, I do not say as to documents annexed with that amendment application except to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority to get redressal of his grievance on the basis of the aforesaid conclusions. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. The impugned order dated March 27, 1997 (annexure 6) of the respondents is quashed and set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari. The respondents are directed to act in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
