Delhi High Court
Shri Harish Chand Rastogi vs The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax ... on 26 May, 2005
Author: M B Lokur
Bench: S Kumar, M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Petitioner has raised two issues in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The first issue relates to the inclusion of Rs. 84,000/- in each of six assessment years. This inclusion is on account of additional compensation on 1/3rd share of a plot of land situated in Jogdhian Colony near Bhagirath Palace, Delhi. The second issue relates to valuation of 1/3rd share in the residential property, being land and building at 45, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi.
2. For the relevant assessment years 1969-70 to 1974-75, the Wealth Tax Officer included a sum of Rs. 84,000/- for each assessment year in the net wealth of the Petitioner on account of additional compensation for a plot of land acquired by the appropriate Government under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1984. For the same assessment years, the Wealth Tax Officer added the value of 1/3rd share of the Prithvi Raj Road property in the Petitioner's net wealth. This addition was based on a report of the valuer under Section 16A(5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (the Act).
3. The Petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 25 of the Act before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (CWT). By a common order dated 19th January, 1982 the CWT up held the addition of Rs. 84,000/- in respect of each of the six assessment years and reduced the value of the 1/3 rd share of the Petitioner in the Prithvi Raj Road property. Being aggrieved by the order of the CWT, the Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
4. During the course of hearing, it was brought to our notice that in respect of the Petitioner's brother in whose case also a sum of Rs. 84,000/- was included in the net wealth by the Wealth Tax Officer, references were made to this Court in respect of the assessment years 1967-68 to 1974-75. The references were registered as WTR No. 66-73/1979. All these references were decided on 1st August, 2001 by a common order passed by a Division Bench of this Court. The question that was referred for the consideration of this Court in those references reads as follows:-
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of the sum of Rs. 84,000/- included by the wealth tax officer in the net wealth of the assessed for the assessment year 1967-68 to 1974-75?
5. On a consideration of the law, this Court concluded that the assessed's right to receive compensation is an asset and that as and when further compensation is received, it would be assessable in the hands of the recipient. There has to be a determination of the question of the quantum received and when it is received, it is required to be assessed in the hands of the recipient.
6. The admitted position in so far as the present writ petition is concerned is that the question of additional compensation was the subject matter of RFA No. 225/1974 Hari Nath Rastogi v. Union of India and RFA 228/1974 Hari Shanker v. Union of India.
These appeals have since been decided and the amount of additional compensation quantified in these appeals must be included in the net wealth of the Petitioner in terms of the decision rendered by this Court in WTR 66-73/1979.
7. In so far as the second question is concerned the CWT has proceeded on the basis that Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 is not retrospective in operation. The admitted position in this regard is that the view of the CWT is incorrect inasmuch as the Supreme Court has since held in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Meerut v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup JT 1994 (6) SC 446 that Rule 1BB has retrospective operation. The decision of the Supreme Court was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of the assessed's brother in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Hari Chand Rastogi WTR 257/1984 decided on 15th November, 1994 wherein the retrospectivity of the said Rule was accepted by the Division Bench of this Court.
8. In view of the above, on both the issues that have been raised before us, the matter will have to be reconsidered by the assessing officer. The first issue will have to be reconsidered in the light of the judgment in Hari Nath Rastogi v. Union of India RFA No. 225/1974 and Hari Shanker v. Union of India RFA 228/1974. The second issue will have to be reconsidered in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Sharvan Kumar Swarup.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back for reconsideration by the Assessing Officer.
10. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
