COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS SURESH KUMAR KAUSHIK ALIAS CHAKKARPANI, 1992 PTD-ALLAHABAD-HIGH-COURT-INDIA 1026 (1931)

(a) Wealth tax

----Reference---Valuation of assets--Agricultural lands--Tribunal whether,can direct discounted value of compensation to be taken into account in relation to assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76--Question of law.

Question whether the Tribunal could direct the discounted value of the compensation to be taken into account in relation to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 when the asset to be valued was agricultural land, was a question of law.

(b) Wealth tax---

---- Reference--Valuation of assets--Tribunal whether can direct discounted value of compensation received by the assessee to be taken in relation to all assessment years including assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 by fixing a certain percentage year wise of the compensation--Question of law.

Question whether the Tribunal was legally correct in directing that the discounted value of the compensation received by the assessee should be taken in relation to all the assessment years including the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 by fixing a certain percentage year wise of the compensation was a question of law.

(c) Wealth tax---

---- Reference--Questions which are explanatory and questions which deal with aspects of questions already referred--Cannot be referred.

Questions which are explanatory and questions which deal with aspects of questions which have already been referred cannot be referred.

Khorshcd Shapoor Chenai v. Asst. CED (1980) 122 ITR 21 (SC) ref.

Vikram Gulati for the Assessec.

JUDGMENT

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, C.J.---The Department has riled this application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, requesting this Court to direct the petitioner to state four questions:

"1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was factually and legally correct in directing discounted value of compensation received by the assessee being taken in relation to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, when the asset to be valued was agricultural lands?

2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in directing that the discounted value of compensation received by the assessee being taken in relation to all the assessment years including the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 by fixing certain percentage year wise of compensation which finding is without any reason and relevant material?

3. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally wrong in not specifying in its direction any further receipt of enhanced compensation in future, which as per the Supreme Court's decision in Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. Asst. CED (1980) 122 ITR 21 formed part of compensation awarded by SLAO for valuing the right to receive and whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's direction as such is vague?

4.Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in giving the aforesaid direction in the assessee's case where what was received was compensation and not enhanced compensation which was the case considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. Asst. CED (1980) 122 ITR 21?"

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we think that questions Nos. 1 and 2 are to be referred. Accordingly, they arc directed to be, stated. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, it is explanatory in nature and need not be referred. Question No. 4 is merely argumentative and is really an aspect of question No. 2 and hence need not be referred. Accordingly, these wealth-tax applications are allowed in part. No costs.

M.B.A./1561/T??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Applications partly allowed.