9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey [1982] 2 ITD 207 (Delhi)(SB), the assessee for the purpose of Wealth-tax Act which includes exemption under section 5(1)(iv), should be considered as a person to whom the assets in the form of the flat in question belongs. 4. Amplifying this argument, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that even the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan v. CWT [1986] 162 ITR 888 has not made any difference. In this regard, he examined the judgment reported at Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan's case and contended that a careful reading of the judgment will show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not made any observation about the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan v. Municipal Board of Sitapur AIR 1965 SC 1923 and that judgment being a judgment of the Supreme Court constituted by a larger Bench of three judges, should, in view of the provisions of article 141 of the Constitution of India, have precedence over the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan's case. 5. For this proposition he relied upon the following judgments: 1. Ganapati Sitaram Balvalkar v. Waman Shripad Mage AIR 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, that flat should be considered as an asset belonging to the assessee and as such, the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv), which was rightly granted by the AAC. 9. Relying upon a circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes being Cir. No. 330, dated6th March, 1982on the provisions of estate duty exemption under section 33(1)(n), it was pointed out that the Board has recognized interest less than ownership in property as an asset belonging to the assessee. In this view of the matter, the same authority cannot argue that where the assessee has right, title and interest and is enjoying the property and has a right of allowing tenancy, such property does not belong to the assessee for the purpose of section 5(1)(iv) exemption under the Wealth-tax Act. He emphasised that in the interpretation of the circulars such interpretation be adopted, which is in favour of the assessee. He relied upon the judgment of Patna High Court in the case of Sriram Agrawal. 10. Lastly, he contended that if at all what has been stated above, we consider it as giving rise to a situation where on the interpretation of the previous fiscal statute, two reasonable views are possible, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as immovable property though it is an asset within the meaning assigned to the word "asset" in section 2(e)(v) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 because asset includes property of every description, both movable and immovable. 13. Adverting to the catena of judgments supporting each of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the assessee, it was submitted by the ld. DR that these judgments are not relevant because the issue in each case cited, was not the one that is being agitated before us and that which had traveled before the Supreme Court in the case of Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan. 14. The above submissions made by the rival parties were recorded in the open Court in their presence. 15. We have given careful thought to these submissions and have also perused the orders of the authorities below. The first submission by the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee and others contributed capital for the construction of the building which includes the flat owned by the assessee has been raised for the first time before us and requires enquiry on facts. Therefore, this contention at this stage cannot be accepted. Nevertheless, even if the building in which the flat is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Ghansham Singh. Coupled with these observations of the Madras High Court are the powers of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to reverse its own decisions. We have, therefore, to see whether the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan has in any manner reversed the judgment in the case of Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmed Khan. 17. According to the ld. counsel for the assessee this judgment has not been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the case of Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan, but this does not stand scrutiny. The report clearly shows that observations in the case of Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmed Khan have been relied upon by the Supreme Court. Apparently, there could not have been a reliance for the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmed Khan without consideration of that judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the case of Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan. We find that at page 897 of Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan's case, the Supreme Court has observed that even in some cases, the phrase 'belonging to' is capable of connoting interest, which is less than absolute and perfect legal title. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan. 19. In so far as the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee about the binding nature of the circulars is concerned, it has certain riders. The circular must be on the subject-matter and there must be no dispute about its applicability. The ld. counsel for the assessee has cited a circular which is about the provisions of the estate duty. The circular, therefore, cannot be said to be straightway applicable or available for application in the interpretation of the phrase "belonging to" used in section 2(m) of the WT Act. The words "belonging to" in section 2(m) of the WT Act had been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan's case. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt about its interpretation and the Board's circular cannot apply even if it is directly on the issue. 20. The ld. counsel for the assessee had submitted before us that the circulars being issued by the CBDT would be binding because it should served as an estoppel. However, this does not appeal to be supportable proposition. The Supreme Court has held that doctrine of "approbate and reprobate" is only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assets belonging to him within the meaning of section 2(m) of the WT Act until the registration took place. Such a judgment, we are duty bound to follow respectfully. We cannot enter upon the controversy whether we still have to find out which is the reasonable view favourable to the assessee. In our considered opinion, the principle of two reasonable views is only for the subordinate Courts because when the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides a case on interpretation Courts and is final as law of the land. The type of contentions raised on behalf of the assessee, therefore, cannot be entertained. These are rejected. 22. However, this leaves us with the issue still open for determination. We have observed supra that the Wealth-tax Officer proceeded to add the value of the flat and did not give the assessee exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act. But the value of the impugned property as such cannot be included because it does not 'belong to' the assessee; there being no valid registration so far. However, at the same time, the value of right, title and interest of the assessee in the said property deserves inclusion in the net wealth of the assessee. From this angel the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
