9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (6) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a flux in appeals, it cannot be legally deemed to be an asset till its final determination by a competent court. A mere actionable claim is not transferable property even under T.P. Act. (b) Various contentions and submissions canvassed at the bar and in the relevant paper book have been wrongly repelled. According to facts and circumstances of the case, amount of Rs. 13,16,869 have been wrongly assessed as value of the alleged right to receive enhanced land acquisition compensation and interest. (c) Till the determination of the compensation by the ultimate court, the compensation as awarded by the lower court at the worst could have been taken as value of the actionable claim. (d) The ultimate grant of interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is a discretionary relief and therefore it has been wrongly valued as part of the asset under the head 'right' to receive enhanced compensation. (e) At any rate, while determination value, hazards, risks and gambles of litigation have not been given proper weight and allowance. 2. Debt owed on account of land acquisition. (a) Rs. 6,71,865 have been wrongly held after enhancement notice as debt owed to the assessee on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to the facts and circumstances of the present case. (b) Otherwise also the value of the property have been wrongly taken at Rs. 1,50,000 on the valuation date when on 25-11-1968, it was acquired only for Rs. 1,00,000 vide receipt No. 489 dated 25-11-1968 from Reviera Flats Pvt. Ltd., there cannot be any increase in value to the tune of Rs. 50,000 just after four months of the agreement of sale. 5. Okhla Plot Delhi. (a) Learned CIT(A) has erred in affirming the decision of the WTO that the property is exigible to wealth-tax in the hands of the assessee. It has been wrongly held as an 'asset' within the meaning of sections 2(e) and 2(m) of the Act. The plea of the appellant that no title stood conveyed and vested in him as no proper conveyance of sale has been executed and registered in his favour have been wrongly repelled without any cogent and worthwhile reasons. It has been ignored that the property in question did not 'belong' to him on the relevant date within the meaning of section 2(e) and 2(m) of the Act. It has been wrongly brought to charge in his hands. Various submissions canvassed at the bar and in the relevant paper book, have been wrongly repelled. Case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in view of the decision of the I.T.A.T., Amritsar Bench in the case of Smt. Badhurani Deepinder Kaur v. Dy. CWT, these grounds are covered against the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds have no merits and the same are dismissed. 7. Ground No. 2 pertains to the grievance of the assessee that Rs. 6,71,865 have been wrongly held by the CWT(A) as debt on the valuation date relating to the land in Ballabhgarh acquisition compensation case but since the assessee has received this enchanced compensation, so it was an asset within the meaning of section 2(e) and 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act and exigible to wealth-tax. 8. We have already given a finding against the assessee while disposing of ground Nos. 1 to 1 (e) of appeal following the order of the I.T.A.T., Amritsar Bench in Smt. Badhurani Deepinder Kaur's case. 9. However, subsequent event has taken place and has been brought to the notice of this Bench by the assessee that the matter has been finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the assessee in Civil Appeal No. 3288 of 1979 in the case of Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur dated 18-3-1994, which is also reported in Revenue Law Rep. [1994] 479, a photo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e flat is given in the Paper Book and is annexure 'C' to the Paper Book. The payment of Rs. 1 lakh was made by cheque drawn by the assessee on his account with National Grindlays Bank Ltd., New Delhi. It has been stated that no agreement has been signed by the assessee with Reviera Apartments (P.) Ltd., New Delhi. Only three documents relating to this transaction available with the assessee are a letter dated, 5th November, 1968 written by the assessee to M/s. Reviera Apartments (P.) Ltd., receipt dated 25-11-1968 for the payment made, and a letter dated 26-11-1971 from Reviera Apartments (P.) Ltd., New Delhi. 14. The letter dated 5-11-1968 is regarding the purchase of the flat for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only), written by the assessee to the Reviera Apartments and the relevant extract of the letter is reproduced below:-- "Dear Sir, As settled please find cheque No. 921632 dated 25-11-1968 for Rs. 1 lakh drawn on the National Grindlays Bank Ltd., Connaught Place, New Delhi attached herewith, towards the total sale price of the above noted permises 32(S) and deliver possession thereof." 15. The second document is Receipt dated 25-11-1968 issued by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Registration Act, etc. But, in the context of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, having regard to the ground realities and further having regard to the object of the Income-tax Act, namely, "to tax the income," we are of the view, "owner" is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right." 18. The learned D.R., however, contended that on perusal of these documents, it is evident that the assessee has paid total sale price of the flat and after receiving the cost the possession of the flat was delivered to him by Reviera Apartments (P.) Ltd., New Delhi. The learned D.R. further contended that it is, therefore, evident from this document that according to the assessee, he had paid Rs. 1,00,000 to the Reviera Apartments as the total settled sale price of the flat and the owner Reviera Apartments confirmed having received the total sale price of such apartment by them. The learned D.R. further contended that it means that Reviera Apartments had no right to abrogate the transaction even if no conveyance deed has been executed and duly registered by them in favour of the assessee. Hence, according to the D.R., the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... definition of net wealth for it would not have been an asset 'belonging' to the assessee." At page 894, the Supreme Court observed as under:-- "In the instant appeal, however, we are concerned with 'belonging' and not with the expression 'owner . ...... the liability to wealth-tax arises because of the 'belonging' of the asset and not otherwise. Mere possession or joint possession unaccompanied by the right to be in possession or ownership property would, therefore, not bring the property within the definition of net wealth for it, would not then be an asset 'belonging' to the assessee ......... It has also to be borne in mind that unlike provision of the Income-tax Act section 2(m) of the Wealth tax Act used the expression 'belonging' to and as such indicate something over which a person dominion and lawful dominion." At page 896, the Supreme Court held as under:--- "Therefore, the fact that the legislature has deliberately not used the expression 'asset' owned by the assessee but asset 'belonging' to the assessee, in our opinion, is an aspect which has to be borne in mind." 20. It has been contended by the assessee that at page 898, the Supreme Court has distinguishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of all the debts owed by the assessee (on the valuation date which have been incurred in relation to the said assets;)" 23. In Podar Cement (P.) Ltd.'s case, the Supreme Court interpreted the word "owner" of the house as defined under section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and section 9 of the old Act, 1922 whereas in the instant case, we are concerned with the expression "belonging" to the assessee under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act and not with the expression 'owner' used under sections 22 to 24 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In other words, liability to pay wealth-tax arises because of the 'belonging' of the assessee and not otherwise. The material question in the light of the above cited cases by the parties required to be decided by us is did Reviera Apartments Flat, in respect of which no registered sale deed has been executed in favour of the assessee but consideration for sale for which had been received from the assessee by the Reviera Apartments and the possession of the same had also been handed over to the assessee, is 'belonging' to the assessee for the purposes of inclusion in the net wealth. The Supreme Court in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan 's case cited by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Act and, hence, the CWT(A) assessed its valuation on the different valuation dates for the purposes of wealth-tax and detailed the same at pages 48 and 49 of his order from the assessment years 1969-70 to 1980-81 (assessment year 1969-70 in question). 26. In view of our above discussion and findings on ground Nos. 4(a) and 4(b), as above, the same finding is also given by us here on the same basis, as discussed while disposing of grounds in respect of Reviera Apartments Flat, in respect of plot in Okhla industrial Area of the assessee and we hold that it did not belong to the assessee within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act. Hence, this industrial plot situated in Okhla Industrial Area cannot be assessed to wealth-tax in the hands of the assessee. This ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b) of the appeal of the assessee are also decided in favour of the assessee. 27. The assessee has not mentioned any ground serial numbered as 6 and 7 after serial No. 5 in his appeal and hence it is presumed that the assessee has not mentioned ground Nos. 6 and 7 in his appeal and so now we are to simply deal with the next ground of appeal which is serial Number 8. 28. The first part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sustained. It has been ignored that trees till they reached the timber stage are part and parcel of the land in the eye of law as is clear from the-:definition of immovable property given in section 2(26) of the General Clauses Act, and sec. 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. Till trees reach timber state, these are always deemed part of the land. (b) As regards, trees standing in Bir Chahal, Bir Ghugiana and Bir Sikhanwala, from the evidence it is proved that these are disease ridden and have stunted growth due to waterlogging and are sparsely populated of thin girth and have not yet reached timber stage. These have been ravaged by field firing operations of the Indian Army carried out in Bir Ghugiana. The observations of S. Biram Singh approved valuer in valuation report of land about trees has not been kept in view. Similarly as regards orchards these have reached at the end of their fruit bearing age and yielded little fruits as is clear from the evidence on the file and valuation report of S. Biram Singh approved valuer. (c) At any rate, valuation assessed at Rs. 20,00,000 of the trees have been wrongly affirmed in the impugned order keeping in view the facts and circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly. 36. Ground No. 5 of W.T.A. No. 49 (ASR)/1986, ground No. 6(i) and (ii) of W.T.A. No. 50 (ASR)/ 1986, pertain to the valuation of all the agricultural lands were not pressed by the assessee in its application dated 8-11-1997 moved before the Bench. Hence, these grounds pertaining to the valuation of agricultural lands are dismissed as not pressed. 37. Ground No. 6 in W.T.A. No. 49 (ASR)/ 1986, ground No. 8 in W.T.A. No. 50 (ASR)/ 1986, ground No. 10 in W.T.A. No. 51 (ASR)/1986, ground No. 9 in W.T.A. Nos. 52 to 54 (ASR)/ 1986 pertaining to the additional wealth-tax on urban property were not pressed by the assessee's counsel during the course of arguments and hence these are disposed of as not pressed. 38. Ground No. 5 in W.T.A. No. 50 (ASR)/1986, ground Nos. 7 and 8 in W.T.A. No. 51 (ASR)/ 1986, ground No. 7 in W.T.A. Nos. 52, 53, 54 and 55 (ASR)/1986 pertaining to the valuation of land of permissible area of separate unit of adult son under Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 and Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 were not pressed by the assessee's counsel on 10-11-1997. Hence, these grounds are therefore, dismissed as not pressed. 39. Ground No. 7 in W.T.A. No. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
