9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (2) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75. The award was passed by the land Acquisition Officer on 16-10-1976 awarding an amount of Rs. 3,07,124 which included solution and interest. The WTO held that form 28-11-1975 the assessee has no right in the land but has only a right to receive compensation. The right to receive compensation is a movable asset which has to be assessed to wealth-tax. Thus, he completed the assessment by including the total compensation received by the assessee. After deducting the wealth tax liability and the proportionate interest for the period after 31-3-1976, he determined the taxable wealth at Rs. 3,00,500. On appeal the AAC.upheld the same. Against the same the assessee has preferred this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the assessee strongly urg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken over on 28-11-1975, the right to receive compensation which is an asset is includible in the net wealth. Thus, the amount of compensation received has been rightly included in the net wealth of the assessee. In this connection, he placed reliance on the decisions in CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries [P.] Ltd. [1985] 155 ITR 711 [SC] and CIT v. A. B. V. Gowda [1986] 157 ITR 697 [Kar.]. 4. We have considered the rival submission. The question for consideration is when the land acquired under the land Acquisition Act, 1894, would vest with the Government. To decide this issue it will be necessary to examine the provisions of the Kerala land Acquisition Act to find out when the tile vest with the Government Section 3 of the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions would clearly show that it is only after the award is passed, the Collector may take possession of the land which shall thereupon absolutely vests in the Government free from all encumbrances. In the instant case, possession was given voluntarily by the assessee on 28-11-1975 before the award was passed on 16-10-1976 by the land Acquisition Officer. Since possession was already given prior to the award, the question of taking possession again did not arise. Thus, the land vests in the Government on 16-10-1976 when the award has been given though possession was taken over earlier. Prior to 16-10-1976 the property did not vest with the Government and the assessee had rights in the land. Thus, as on the valuation date 31-3-1976 the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Government by the a ward passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The above decisions squarely apply to the instant case. The facts in the case of Kerala State Housing Board are almost identical to the facts of the instant case as in both the cases, the land owners gave possession of the land to the Government prior to the passing of the award. In that case also provisions of section 17(1) were not invoked. 6. In Purshottambhai Maganbhai Hatheesing (HUF) case possession of the land was taken on 29-12-1970 by private negotiations but not in exercise of powers under section 17. The award was passed by the land Acquisition Officer on 3-2-1971. The question arose as to in which year the transfer of the property is effected for the purpose o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 16-10-1976. Prior to that date the assessee was the owner of the land. Hence, on the valuation date as on 31-3-1976 the assessee was the owner of the agricultural land and on that date she did not have any right to receive compensation. Thus, the compensation amount receivable in respect of the land is not inculdibel in the net wealth of the assessee. The bifurcation of Rs. 3,07,524 received as compensation is as under : Rs. Market value of the land 2,23,119.40 Value of the building &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
