RAJ MALWINDER SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:20.01.2009 Raja Malwinder Singh, Leela Bhawan, Patiala ...Appellant versus Commissioner of Wealth Tax (A), Patiala ....Respondents and another. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Urvashi Dugga, Advocate for the respondents.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and belongs to the royal family of Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Patiala. The Tribunal had initially decided these appeals on 21.10.1998. One of the common issues involved in these appeals has been about the valuation of the then residential property located at Leela Bhawan, Patiala, which has been used by the appellant as such. For the purpose of valuation, the department had bifurcated the residential land bounded by four walls of - 3 - the property into different segments and adopted different rates of land. The house has been in existence over the past 70 years and in the earlier years ending on 31.03.1970 and 31.03.1973, the Tribunal in Wealth Tax Appeal No.275 and 276/Chandi/91 had adopted the uniform rate of land for the entire land within the boundary wall of the residential property. In the earlier impugned order dated 21.10.1998, the Tribunal had considered the facts of the case and the arguments of both the parties. It then proceeded to hold in para 2.7 that the value of the residential house and the land appurtenant to the residential house may be valued as per the provisions of Section 7(4) of the Act. It would be necessary to peruse para 2.7 of the order which reads as under :- “We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have perused orders of the departmental authorities. It is observed that first prayer of ld. Counsel is that value of residential house may be determined as on 31.3.1971 and its value may be frozen in terms of section 7(4) of W.T. Act. He has referred to order of the Tribunal for a ys. 70-71 and 71-72, whereby it held that the multiplies should have been the age of the building divided by the life of the building in terms of number of years and directed AO to allow depreciation on the said basis and work out value of the property as on 31.03.1970 in respect of different portions, mentioned in the report. It is observed that CWT(A) has already held that the tubewell should be treated as part of residential house - 4 - and its value be frozen as on 1.4.1971. Similarly, CWT(A) has directed that the boundary wall be treated as a part of residential house and its value be frozen as on 1.4.1971. He has thus accepted in principle that value of certain assets which formed part of residential house should be frozen as on 1.4.1971. The department is not in appeal on this issue. Thus, having regard to the provisions of Section 7(4), whereunder value of a house belonging to the assessee and exclusively used by him for residential purposes throughout the period of twelve months immediately preceding the valuation date may at the option of the assessee be taken to be the price which, in the opinion of AO, it would fetch if sold in open market on the valuation date next following the date on which he became owner of the house or on the valuation date relevant to assessment year commencing on 1.4.1971, whichever valuation date is later, and the aforesaid orders of CWT(A), we find force in the submission made by ld. Counsel. We, therefore, direct AO to work out value of residential house as on 31.03.1971, in the light of aforesaid order of the Tribunal and adopt the same value for all subsequent years under consideration.” However, in para 2.9 of the same order, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the classification of land into different categories, area of land and valuation of land, is fair and reasonable. Therefore, the residential property and the land appurtenant to it be classified into different categories and so valued differently. It would also be necessary to reproduce in extenso para 2.9, which reads as under :- “The further submission made by ld. Counsel pertained to rate of land, area of land and classification. The assessee is agitated mainly about bifurcation of land into two categories with reference to adoption of rate of land. It has been urged that there was no change in nature of property or use and that value as on 31.03.1971 may be adopted. In the written submissions, it is pointed out that VO reserved an area of 1425 sq.yds. as land appurtenant to residential house and the assessee represented to the IAC that total area covered was 2706 sq. yds. and the property had metallic road measuring 981 meters and CC pavements measuring 1135 meters and brick pavements measuring 1239 meters, value whereof had been included in valuation of the property. The assessee is also agitated that oral representation was made to IAC, who assured to issue necessary instructions and the letter placed at page 77 of the paperbook vol.1 only confirms the said discussion and there was no agreement to the view-point of VO with - 6 - reference to classification of land into categories 4 and 5. It is observed that in para 2 of the said letter, it has been mentioned the in the bifurcation between first two categories is imaginary and is not supported by any law. However, this mater has finally been settled at the time of discussion held by the undersigned with you in the present of Sh.B.S.Dahia, IAC, Central Range, Ludhiana, in the office of the ITO, CC, Patiala. As regards commercial land, the same has already been sold and the assessee possesses only one plot measuring 577 sq.yds. The said letter has been written to the VO on behalf of ld. Counsel and Sh. Jagmohan Singh. We feel that the reasoning given by CWT(A) for classification of land into different categories, area of land and valuation of land is not only based on the aforesaid letter but is otherwise fair and reasonable and his orders do not call for any interference. Apart from reasons given by CWT(A), which have been upheld by us, the aforesaid letter on the part of ld. Counsel is nothing short of an agreement in so far as classification of land into different categories made by VO is concerned. It is also observed from para 19 of impugned order that in subsequent years, the assessee did convert lands - 7 - appurtenant to residential house into commercial plots and sold them as such. The said observations had not been controverted before us.” The Assessee-appellant felt aggrieved by the apparent contradictions in paras 2.7 and 2.9 of the order. Accordingly, misc. applications were filed with the grievance that the observation in the aforesaid paras were contrary to each other inasmuch as in para 2.7, the Tribunal had taken note of the fact that the department had conceded the tubewell and the boundary wall to be part of the residential property. The Tribunal then went on to make observations that the valuation of the properties should be frozen on 1.4.1971. However, in para 2.9, the Tribunal had accepted the classification of land into different categories as made by the Valuation Officer by taking into consideration the letter of the Assessee to which reference has been made in para 2.9 of the order. Accordingly misc. petitions filed were accepted by the Tribunal on 01.02.2002 by observing as under :- “On carefully going through the observations of the Bench made in Paras 2.7 & 2.9 of its order referred to by the assessee in these applications we find that the observations regarding classification of land into different categories made by the Bench in Para 2.7 and 2.9 are contrary to each other because from the observations made in para 2.7 it appears that the residential house and land appurtenant thereto according to the Bench is to be valued as residential - 8 - property whereas as per Para 2.9 it seems that the land appurtenant to residential house is to valued at different rates as per the different categories of land classified by the V.O. in his order. Since these two observations in Para 2.7 and 2.9 are contrary, we are of the opinion that this mistake apparent from record is crept into the order of the Bench, requires to be rectified by recalling the order for the limited purpose of valuation of land appurtenant to the residential house. Accordingly all the above applications moved by the assessee are allowed and the orders passed in above mentioned appeals, are hereby recalled for a limited purpose of determining the valuation of land appurtenant to residential house in question.” It is, thus, evident that the Tribunal recalled the order dated 21.10.1998 (P-3) for a limited purpose of determining the valuation of land appurtenant to residential house in question. When the appeals were listed for hearing, the same Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 04.02.2003 concluded that there was no contradiction in the findings recorded by the Tribunal in paras 2.7 and 2.9 of the order dated 21.10.1998. The view of the Tribunal is discernible from a perusal of para 5.1, which reads as under :- “We have also observed that the issue raised before the Tribunal not only related to value of residential house but also to value of land. The total - 9 - area covered by Leela Bhawan was 52100 sq. yds. While valuing the residential house, the VO had also allowed rebate @ 20% of the total area on account of providing road, pathways etc., which required to be frozen as on 1.4. 71. Thus, the value of land appurtenant to residential house was taken at 13689 sq. yds. The value of such land was held to be frozen because of section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax Act. As regards the remaining land, the VO had categorized the same as commercial land and residential land sold in the subsequent years. Margin for providing roads, pathways etc. was also provided. The said land was valued at different rates. Such bifurcation of the land and the value thereof was upheld by the Tribunal after taking into account the rival submissions made by both the parties. This is clear from the finding recorded in paras 2.9 and 2.10 of the aforesaid order. Thus, we do not find any merit in the submissions of the ld. Counsel that there was contradiction in the findings recorded by the Tribunal in paras 2.7 and 2.9 of its aforesaid order. In fact, the land merits in para 2.9 of the aforesaid order has not been treated and considered as part of the residential house. We, therefore, do not find any ambiguity or contradiction - 10 - in the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not call for any modification. We order accordingly.” Mr. Akshay Bhan, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that contradiction in the impugned order dated 04.02.2003 (P-5) is writ large. According to the learned counsel, the approach of the same Bench of the Tribunal is very strange inasmuch as at one time it has concluded that paras 2.7 and 2.9 are contradictory to each other and later it refuses to accept any contradiction. Learned counsel has maintained that both things cannot be right and the mutually destructive approach cannot be permitted in the orders of the Tribunal. He has submitted that the impugned order in fact amounts to reviewing the order dated 01.02.2002 and dismissal of misc. petitions filed by the Assessee which have been earlier allowed. Ms. Urvashi Dugga, learned State counsel for the revenue has attempted to support the impugned order and has argued that the value of the land appurtenant to the residential house Leela Bhawan belonging to the Assessee was taken to be 13,689 sq. yds. The value of the land was held to be frozen by taking into account Section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax Act. The remaining land has been categorized as commercial land and residential land sold in subsequent years. The aforesaid land was valued at different rates. However, the learned State counsel has not been able to clarify and explain the apparent contradiction in para 2.7 which clearly states that the value of the residential house and land appurtenant to it was to be made as per the - 11 - provisions of Section 7(4) of the Act. Whereas in para 2.9, the Tribunal has asked for the classification of land into two different categories. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Tribunal has not proceeded on sound reasoning. It amounts to blowing hot and cold in the same breath. It has come on record in the order dated 01.02.2002 (P-4) that in para 2.7 and para 2.9, there are mutual contradictions which were required to be reconciled. The aforesaid contradictions were pointed out at the instance of the Assessee when he filed misc. petitions. However, when the main appeals were taken up, the Tribunal recorded a finding that there was, in fact , no contradiction which would be evident from the perusal of para