GAJ SINGH VS SETTLEMENT COMMISSION
2001 P T D 2445
[247 I T R 586]
[Supreme Court of India]
Present: S. P. Bharucha, M. B. Shah and Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ
GAJ SINGH
Versus
SETTLEMENT COMMISSION and others
C. As. Nos.895 to 911 of 1991, decided on 19/07/2000.
(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated December 29, 1983 of the Wealth Tax Settlement Commission in 20/1/8/78 WT).
(a) Wealth tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑ Valuation of assets‑‑‑Immovable property‑‑‑Rule 1BB applicable even for assessment years prior to 1979‑80‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, R.1 BB.
(b) Wealth tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Exemption‑‑‑One residential house‑‑‑Building owned by cultivator of agricultural land ‑‑‑Assessee availing of exemption under S.5(1)(iii) in respect of a palace as ex‑Ruler of Indian State‑‑‑Settlement Commission had not given any finding with regard to Cl. (ivb) of S.5(1) in .respect of another palace in vicinity of agricultural land‑‑‑Exemption could not be claimed under S.5(1)(ivb) in respect of another palace‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, S.5.
(c) Wealth tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Exemption‑‑‑Archaeological collection or books or manuscripts‑‑‑Scope of Cl. (xii) of S.5(1)‑‑‑Exemption under S.5(1)(xii) is not available in respect of archaeological site‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, S.5.
Where the assessee, an ex‑Ruler of an Indian State, had opted to adopt the Umed Bhavan Palace as his house for the purposes of exemption under section 5(1)(iii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957:
Held, (i) that he could not seek exemption for another house, namely, the Sardar Samand Palace under clause (iv).
(ii) That insofar as clause (ivb) was concerned, the only material that the assessee relied upon, was the argument of the assessee before the Commission that the Sardar Samand Palace was situated in the Sardar Samand village, in the vicinity of the assessee's agricultural land and that it was used as "a dwelling unit, stalls and cattle sheds". The Commission had not delivered any finding in regard‑to clause (ivb) because, as was apparent, the claim of the assessee before it was not based thereon. In any event, a statement of that nature was not proof of any kind. The claim under clause (ivb) of section 5(1) could not be allowed:
Held also, (i) that the Jodhpur Fort is an archaeological site; it is not an archaeological collection or book or manuscript and, therefore, the exemption under clause (xii) of section 5(1) was not available in respect of it.
(ii) That the immovable properties referred to in para. 7 of the Settlement Commission's order should be valued under rule 1BB of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, even for the assessment year prior to 1979‑80.
CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons (1994) 210 ITR 886 (SC) fol.
Anoop G. Choudhary, Senior Advocate (Ms. A. K. Verma and Ms. Meera Mathur, Advocate for JBD & Co., Advocates with him) for Appellant.
H.N. Salve, Solicitor‑General (Ms. Laxmi Iyengar and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Respondents.
JUDGMENT
Under challenge before us is an order passed by the Settlement Commission in respect of the assessee‑appellant, Gaj Singh, the erstwhile Maharaja of Jodhpur. Leave was granted restricted to the following three questions:
"(1)????? Whether the immovable properties referred, to in para. 7 of the Settlement Commission's order should be valued under rule 1BB even for the assessment years prior to 1979‑80?
(2)??????? Whether the value of the Sardar Samand Palace is exempt from wealth tax under section 5(1)(iv) or (ivb) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957?
(3)??????? Whether the value of the Jodhpur Fort is exempt under section 5(1)(xii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957?"
It is not in dispute that the first question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, being covered by the decision of this Court in CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup &. Sous (1994) 210 ITR 886.
As to the second question, section 5 of the Wealth Tax Act states that "wealth tax shall not be payable by an asses see in respect of the following assets, and such assets shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee ....(iv) one house or part of a house belonging to the assessee...(ivb) one building or one group of buildings owned by a cultivator of, or receiver of rent or revenue out of agricultural land: Provided that such building or group of buildings is on or in the immediate vicinity of the land and is required by the cultivator or the receiver of rent or revenue; by reason of his connection with the land".
The assessee opted to adopt the Umed Bhavan Palace as his house for the purposes of exemption under section 5(1)(iii), which is specific for' the purpose. It is difficult to see how he could seek exemption for another house, namely, the Sardar Samad Palance under clause (iv).
In so far as clause (ivb) is concerned, the only material that learned counsel for the assessee relies upon is the argument of the assessee's representative before the Commission that the Sardar Samad Palance was situated in the Sardar village, in the vicinity of the assessee's agricultural land and that‑it was used as "a dwelling unit, stalls and cattle sheds". The Commission had not delivered any finding in regard to clause (ivb) because, as is apparent, the claim of the assessee before it was not based thereon. It was only because of the statement of the assessee's representative, quoted above, which seemed to meet the requirements of clause (ivb) that the argument was advanced before us. In any event, a statement of that nature is not proof of any kind. The claim under clause (ivb) is rejected.
As to the third question, the argument is that the Jodhpur Fort is exempt under clause (xii) of section 5(l). That clause reads: "any works of art, archaeological, scientific or art collections, books or manuscripts belonging to the assessee and not intended for sale". The Jodhpur Fort is an archaeological site; it is not an archaeological collection or book or manuscript and, therefore, the exemption under clause (xii) is not available.
Accordingly, the first question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The second and third questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
Order on the civil appeals accordingly.
No order as to costs.
M.B.A./993/FC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.