SHER SINGH (HUF) VS COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
2001 P T D 2249
[247 I T R 103]
[Delhi High Court (India)]
Before Arijit Pasayat, C. J. and D. K. Jain, J
SHER SINGH (HUF)
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
Wealth Tax Reference No.1 of 1982, decided on 05/07/2000.
(a) Wealth tax‑‑
‑-‑‑Net wealth‑‑‑Acquisition of land by Government‑‑‑Right to receive compensation‑‑‑Value of right to receive compensation on date alone includible in assessee's net wealth‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
(b) Wealth tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Appeal to Appellate Tribunal‑‑‑Additional grounds of appeal‑‑‑Tribunal whether justified in declining to entertain same‑‑‑Valuation fixed by Tribunal not assailed by assessee‑‑‑Question becoming of academic interest‑‑‑Question returned unanswered‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, S.27.
Held, (i) that the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of compensation for which the appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court was not liable to be included and the value of the right to receive compensation on the date alone was includible in the assessee's net wealth.
C.W.T. v. Snit. Anjamli Khan (1991) 187 ITR 345 (SC) and C.W.T. v. Mehatab (U.C.) (1998) 231 ITR 501 (SC) fol.
(ii) That the question whether the Tribunal was justified in declining to admit an additional legal ground of appeal was of academic interest in view of the fact that the valuation fixed by the Tribunal was not assailed as incorrect by the assessee.
Nemo for the Assessee.
R.D. Jolly with Ms. Premlata Bansal for the Commissioner.
JUDGMENT
All these references relate to different questions but in respect of the same assessee. Some of the reference applications have been filed by the Revenue and some by the assessee.
The question referred for the opinion of this Court under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (in short the "Act"), at the instance of the Revenue is as under:
"Whether, on the facts and in 'the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of compensation for which the appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court was not liable to be included in the net wealth of the assessee?"
At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred for opinion:
"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in declining to admit an additional legal ground of appeal regarding inclusion of a sum of Rs.1,36,400 in the net wealth of the assessee awarded by the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, on May 27, 1977?"
So far as the question referred at the instance of the Revenue, the decision of the apex Court in the case of C.W.T, v. Smt. Anjamli Khan (1991) 187 ITR 345, is applicable. It was held that the value of right to receive compensation on the date had to be included in the assessee's net wealth. Whether the compensation to be determined is payable on a date much later than the valuation date, the value of the assessee's right to receive compensation can only be the present value, i.e., the value as on the valuation date of the amount that may be determined and paid as compensation in future. It cannot be equal to the amount of compensation payable under the relevant statute. This position was again reiterated in the case of C.W.T. v. (U.C.) Mehatab (1998) 231 ITR 501 (SC). Accordingly, the question referred at the Revenue's instance has to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
So far as the assessee's reference is concerned, the prayer to accept additional grounds was turned down by the Tribunal on the ground that they contained statements contrary to the earlier position as accepted by the assessee. The Tribunal could have entertained the additional grounds and given an adverse inference with respect to factual aspects, if the stand was really contrary to what was pleaded earlier and was accepted to be the admitted position. In any event, that question is of academic interest because the valuation as fixed by the Tribunal has not been assailed to be incorrect by the assessee. Therefore, we decline to answer the question referred at the assessee's instance.
Reference applications are disposed of accordingly‑.
M.B.A./971/FC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.