9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o India and since then she has been residing in West Bengal. The properties left by her in Bangladesh were seized by the Government of that country and were declared as enemy property. Subsequently, the Government of India invited from the persons leaving their properties in Bangladesh the details of such properties and the quantum of such losses suffered in respect of seizure of their properties with their respective claim for compensation. Accordingly, the assessee furnished details required in the proforma prescribed for the purpose and claimed compensation. On 18-6-1976 the assessee received a sum of Rs. 63,050 from the Government of India, through the custodian of enemy property for India, as an ad hoc compensation, with a condition th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said proposition. The AAC, after considering the submissions made before him as also following the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of U.C. Mahatab, held that since the compensation was received by the assessee only on 18-6-1976, the WTO was not justified in including the amount of Rs. 2,52,200 in the net wealth of the assessee for each of the years under appeal. 4. Against the said order of the AAC, the department has preferred the present appeals before us. It was contended by the learned departmental representative that the word "property" is a term of 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. He urged t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bangladesh were seized and taken over by the Government of that country was not in dispute. There is also no dispute about the fact that the assessee had not received any compensation during the valuation dates relevant to the assessment years under consideration. It is well known that in a case where properties were seized and taken over by the custodian of enemy property (Bangladesh), the owner had no access to the said properties and, therefore, it has to be held that the owner could not exercise his or her right of ownership in the properties so seized. As a matter of fact, the assessee had no legal right to the compensation that she received only on 18-6-1976. The mere fact that the Government of India allowed certain compensation aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent case is worst inasmuch as the assessee had no ray of hope in getting any compensation from the Government of Bangladesh in respect of her property that were taken over and declared as enemy property. It is on account of compassionate view taken by the Government of India that the assessee received compensation of Rs. 63,050 on 18-6-1976. On a consideration of this fact and keeping in view the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of U.C. Mahatab, we are of the opinion that the AAC was justified in his direction to exclude the value of the compensation from the net wealth of the assessee receivable by the assessee after the valuation dates relevant to the assessment years under appeal, in respect of her assets seized and pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
