COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, PATIALA vs. GAGANDEEP SINGH AND CHARANJIT SINGH

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. Kumar, J. This order shall dispose of WTA Nos. 15 to 25, 37, 38, 42 to 48, 50 and 51 of 2009, as common questions of law and facts have been raised. These appeals preferred by the Revenue under Section 27A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for brevity 'the Act') against the common order dated 09.07.2008 passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh, Bench-A, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') passed in WTA No. 16/Chandi/2008. The Tribunal has taken the view that the amount payable under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is over and above of the market value and therefore, such an amount cannot be said to be construing market value of the land for the purposes of chargability of Wealth Tax. On the other issue, the Tribunal has directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the value of such land at 50% of the value computable with reference to the rates adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector, only if the assessee adduces the relevant material evidencing the dispute with the private persons in whose adverse possession such land is lying. Aggrieved by the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal, the Revenue has claimed the following substantial questions of law: “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the ITAT is fair even when it has ignored the fair market value as evidenced by the sale instance that took place in the year immediately following the valuation date.” “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in allowing deduction @ 50% when the land had ultimately been acquired by the Govt. and as such irrespective of any illegal possession, the legal owner alone was entitled to receive compensation”. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in not taking solatium as part and parcel of the value of land.” Ms. Radhika Suri, learned counsel for the assessee-respondent has argued that WTA Nos. 31 to 36 of 2009, involving similar questions of law stand already dismissed by an order passed today by a Division Bench of this Court. According to learned counsel for the appellant, similar questions have been raised in these appeals, which are thus liable to be answered against the revenue. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, learned counsel for the Revenue could not dispute the aforesaid factual position. In fact, she admitted that matter is covered by the aforesaid order. Therefore, we are not left with any option except to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee-respondent. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed, as the questions have been answered against the Revenue and in favour of assessee- respondent by other Division Bench of this Court. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases. (M.M. KUMAR)