TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assets stricto sensu. In this perspective, we find ourselves fortified in taking the view that the assets in question namely urban lands belonging to Assessees for which they are not only claiming ownership through litigation but are undoubtedly in possession, dominion and control but also in user of the land yielding income therefrom, they cannot be held to be outside the tax net under the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957. 'Protective Assessments - Held that:- As already noted above that the demands in question have been raised under the Protective Assessments only framed by the Assessing Authority and the recovery on the basis of the same is not enforceable as of now and therefore, the appellate Orders by the Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (Appeals) even though decided the Questions on merits would remain in the character of the Protective Assessments only, but since the Tribunal has decided the question of law also, that is why it has given rise to the aforesaid Substantial Questions of law which we are called upon to decide. Question No.1 is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Respondent Assessees and we hold that the Income Tax App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y imposing taxes on richer and wealthier people on their wealth exceeding a particular monetary limit on the net market value of the Assets held by them on the valuation date, i.e. the last date preceding the commencement of the Assessment Year. The levy of Wealth-Tax has been discontinued from the Assessment Year 2016-17, as amended by Finance Bill of 2015. The A.Y.1999-2000 to A.Y. 2004-05 involved in the present appeals are prior to its discontinuation. 2. The definition of Assets underwent a drastic amendment with effect from 01/04/1993 and the word Assets defined in Section 2 (ea) of the Act since 1st April 1993 comprises of six categories of Assets. This amendment was brought to encourage the Assets to be put to productive use and to levy tax under the said Act for the aforesaid avowed object of the enactment. INTRODUCTION OF CASE: 3. The present batch of Appeals filed by the Department raise the following Substantial Question of law which is required to be answered in the present set of appeals for the various assessment years, viz. A.Y.1999-2000 to A.Y.2004-05 is as follows:- Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same family. While prior to enactment of Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 , the litigation under the Urban Land Ceiling law of 1976 was going on in respect of the said property, on 15/11/1996, with the Presidential assent, the aforesaid Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 was enacted by the State Government and the appointed date under the said Act was notified to be 21/11/1996. 9. The constitutional validity and the vires of the said enactment came to be challenged by all the Assessees, the brother and the sisters, before this Court by Writ Petition No.32175/1996 and connected writ petitions, in which the interim Orders were passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 10/12/1996 in the first instance. However, these writ petitions came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by a detailed judgment on 31/03/1997 (M/s. Chamundi Hotel (P) Ltd., the Brother, Sri. Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar and the Assessee sisters herein Vs. The State of Karnataka and others) (reported in ILR 1997 Kar.1573) against which the appeals were preferred before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India where also, the interim Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elds and Open Spaces Regulation Act, 1985? 3. Whether the learned C.I.T(Appeals) and Tribunal were justified in setting aside the protective assessment made by the Assessing Authority for the assessment year in question? 11. The important aspects of the controversy in hand in the four corners of the aforesaid Substantial Questions of law center round the three basic aspects of the matter. They are:- (a) The meaning of the words belonging to as employed in the definition of net wealth defined in Section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 read with the charging provisions of Section 3 of the Act; (b) The scope of taxability of urban land as defined in Section 2(ea)(v) with its Explanation and Exclusion Clause in the said Explanation; and (c) What is the scope and purport of Protective Assessments made in the hands of the Respondent Assessees and whether the character of such Protective Assessments changes by determination of nontaxability in the hands of higher Appellate Authorities under the Act deciding the Appeals on merits. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS: 12. Before coming to the contentions raised at the Bar by both the parties, we woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The relevant portion of Chapter II - Charge of Wealth-Tax and Assets subject to such Charge is extracted below:- CHAPTER II CHARGE OF WEALTH-TAX AND ASSETS SUBJECT TO SUCH CHARGE 3. Charge of wealth-tax. (1) [Subject to the other provisions (including provisions for the levy of additional wealth-tax) contained in this Act], there shall be charged for every [assessment year] commencing on and from the first day of April, 1957 [but] before the 1st day of April, 1993], a tax (hereinafter referred to as wealth-tax) in respect of the net wealth on the corresponding valuation date of every individual, Hindu undivided family and company [at the rate or rates specified in Schedule-I]. (2) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, there shall be charged for every assessment year commencing on and from the 1st day of April, 1993, wealth-tax in respect of the net wealth on the corresponding valuation date of every individual, Hindu undivided family and company, at the rate of one per cent. of the amount by which the net wealth exceeds fifteen lakh rupees. Provided that in the case of every assessment year commencing on and from the 1st day of April ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tire Bangalore palace and the lands appurtenant thereto including the lands in question held and possessed by the Respondent Assessee - Sisters, stood vested in the State Government and therefore, irrespective of the challenge to the said enactment by the Assessees before the Court of law which failed before the High Court and the matter is now pending before the Nine Judges Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, the said lands cannot be said to be owned or belonging to the Respondent Assessees on the respective Valuation Dates for the Assessment Years in question and therefore, there is no question of imposition of any Wealth-Tax on them during the said Assessment Years. 17. The Preamble, Sections 4, 5 and Section 8 of the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 are quoted below for ready reference:- THE BANGALORE PALACE (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER) ACT, 1996 (First published in the Karnataka Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 18th November, 1996) (Received the assent of the president on the Fifteenth day of November, 1996) An Act to provide for the acquisition and transfer of the Bangalore Palace and open space around it in the public inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred to, and shall vest absolutely in the State Government. Section 5. General effect of vesting. (1) The Palace shall be deemed to include all assets, rights, leaseholds, powers, authorities and privileges and all property, moveable and immoveable, including buildings, regalia, painting, art works, sculptures and all other rights and interest in or arising out of such property, as were immediately before the appointed day in the ownership, possession, power or control of the legal representative or heirs or other interested persons and all books of accounts, registers and other documents of whatever nature relating thereto. (2) All properties aforesaid, which have vested in the State Government under Section 4 shall, by virtue of such vesting be freed and discharged from any trust, obligation, mortgage, lease, charge, lien and all other encumbrances affecting them and attachment, injunction or decree or order of any Court or authority restricting the use of such property in any manner shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. (3) Every legal representative, heir or other person who has, on the appointed day, any right, title or interest in relation to the Palac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d parcels of land of approximately 28 Acres in the hands of each of the Respondent Assessee Sisters, these lands cannot be said to be urban land falling under Section 2(ea)(v) of the Act, because, the Exclusion Clause (b) of the said definition clearly excludes such lands on which construction of a Building is not permissible under any law for the time being in force. [III] They submitted that not only the lands in question stood divested from the Respondent Assessees and vested in the State Government under Section 4 of the Act of 1996, with effect from 21/11/1996 but with the limited right of user given to the Assessees while maintaining the status-quo of their possession, by the Hon ble Supreme Court under the interim Orders, to let-out the said properties for the events like marriages and other public functions to earn some income out of them, to meet the expenses of maintaining the said property, such vacant lands cannot be said to be urban lands on which any construction is permitted and therefore, the lands would fall outside the tax net under the definition of urban land as defined in Section 2(ea) of the Act with effect from 01/04/1993. They also referred a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t thereto including the smaller portions held in the hands of these five Assessee sisters, the total Valuation cannot exceed ₹ 11.00 crores fixed by the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 itself which does not envisage any determination of compensation on the basis of the market value of the Assets and therefore, only a proportionate Valuation accordingly can be assessed in the hands of the Assessees for 28 acres of land in question and not at high rate of ₹ 183.33 Crores (28 Acres x ₹ 1,500/- per sq.ft. X 43,650 Sq.ft.) as was done by the Assessing Authority in the impugned protective assessment orders, on the basis of the Guidance Value fixed by the State Government for this area. [VII] They further urged that in fact only a very small portion within 28 acres is allowed to be used for such events like marriages etc., which too is hedged with several conditions imposed by the Hon ble Apex Court in the interim Order and such income is being regularly offered for income tax under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and is being assessed by the Income Tax Authorities from time to time and income tax is being paid by the Assessees. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... control over the urban lands in question. Therefore, all the attributes of ownership of a property belonging to an Assessee are satisfied qua these lands in the hands of the Respondent Assessees and therefore, there is no escape from taxability of the lands in question in the hands of the Respondent Assessees under the provisions of the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957. [II] The learned counsel for the Revenue further urged that the litmus term belonging to is much wider term than the term ownership of the property and as construed by various judgments that such term is of wider import, the levy of tax on such assets in the hands of the assessees cannot be defeated. [III] He submitted that the lands in question are undoubtedly urban lands falling within the Municipal Corporation limits and rather the same being in the heart of the Bengaluru City, cannot be said to be excluded from the tax net merely because some conditions are imposed for user of such lands for leasing them out from time to time for functions like marriages and other public functions from which huge income is generated and therefore, the said urban lands cannot be said to be unproductive assets and b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the relevant case laws cited by both the sides at the relevant stage. REASONS FOR CONCLUSIONS OF THIS COURT: 20. Having given our earnest consideration to the rival submissions and upon carefully perusing the definitions in the Act and the Scheme of the Wealth-Tax Act itself and relevant case laws, we find ourselves unable to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the Respondent Assessees and we are of the opinion that the lands in question are assessable to Wealth-Tax as urban lands in the hands of the Respondent Assessees. The ITAT and Income Tax (Appeals) have erred in holding these assets to be exempt from the WealthTax in the hands of the Assessees. 21. We make it clear that we are not going into the aspect of Valuation on the basis of which the Wealth-Tax can be finally imposed on the Respondent Assessees in the course of substantive assessments, because we are of the opinion that only Protective Assessments have been made by the Assessing Authorities awaiting the final decision from the Hon ble Apex Court as to whether the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 itself is constitutionally valid or not. A clear position about the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valuation date, including assets required to be included in his net wealth as on that date under Section 4 of the Act, in excess of the aggregate value of all the debts owed by the assessee will be the net wealth . 25. Similarly, the definition of the word asset in Section 2(ea) of the Act only enumerates the six assets, viz. buildings or lands, Motor cars, jewellery, bullion etc. yachts, boats and aircrafts and urban land and cash in hand. 26. The Explanation of the term urban land with which we are presently concerned demarcates the urban lands in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporations or in any area within 8 kms. from the local limits of any Municipality. The only exclusion is, where the construction of a Building is not permissible under any law for the time being in force or it is used as industrial land or is used as Stock-in-trade. 27. We are of the opinion that the lands in question belonging to the Respondent Assessees owned and possessed by them through out the period in question cannot be said to be the lands on which the construction of a Building is absolutely prohibited. The said exclusion terms construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessees executing further Lease Agreements, giving to the Lessees the perennial rights to use these lands in question in the best business interests and pay the fixed Lease Rents to the Assessees on yearly basis and in such Agreements, they claimed to be the owners of the lands in question also and such evidence of record would repel any thought of such urban lands for being excluded from the tax net under the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957. 29. The contention of the Assessees is that they are the owners of the lands and the matters are pending before the Hon ble Apex Court, as would be clear from the Memorandum of their Appeals before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India and they even claim that the valuation of the entire Bangalore Palace and the appurtenant lands thereto was around ₹ 3,000.00 Crores and that also shows that even though prima facie and without any doubt the Valuation of the assets is much higher than the cap of ₹ 11.00 crores claimed by the learned counsel for the assessees. In any case, we are not expressing any opinion on the Valuation aspect as already indicated, but the fact remains that highly valued urban lands and the urban lands yielding in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vil)No.8801/1997 (Sri. Srikanta D.N. Wadiyar Vs. State of Karnataka and others ) reads thus:- SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.8801/97 (From the Judgment and order dated 31/03/97 in WP 32175/96 of The HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA At Bangalore) SRI SRIKANTA D N WADIYAR VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA ORS Date: 22/04/97 This Petition was called on for hearing toady. HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUJATH V. MANOHAR HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KIRPAL For Petitioner (s) Ms. Indu Malhotra, Adv. For Respondent (s) Mr. P. Mahale, Adv. Mr. N. Ganpathy, Adv. ORDER List the matter on 30-4-97 There shall be stay of dispossession till 30-4-97. Sd/- Sd/- Court Master Court Master 33. The Interim Order passed by the Hon ble Apex Court on 30/04/1997 in SLP (Civil)No.8801/1997 (Sri. Srikanta D.N. Wadiyar Vs. State of Karnataka and others ) reads thus:- SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.8801/97 (From the Judgment and order dated 31/3/97 in WP3217 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This order may be read in continuation of our order dated 10-8-1998. Till further orders from this Court, the following interim arrangement is made: 1. The petitioners in I.A.1 and 5 of 1997 are permitted to let the Bangalore Palace premises on temporary leave/licence/hire basis subject to the following conditions:- i) That the premises shall be let out on leave/licence basis for a fixed period only with the prior permission of the State Government; ii) That the premises shall be let out only for the purpose which are not inconsistent with the object of the Acquisition Act: iii) That the petitioners shall ensure and undertake that no trees shall be cut from the portion of the premises so let out nor any other damage is caused to the landscape or environment; iv) That the areas marked in Green in the plan, annexed hereto alone shall be so let out. The entire area marked in Green, we are informed by the petitioners, does not exceed 30 Acres; v) That rest of the land i.e., parks and open space shall not be let out for any purpose by the petitioners; vi) That the petitioners shall maintain an upto dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Details of the activity to be carried out in the land/building for which permission is sought. (e) An undertaking that the use proposed of land/building will not have prejudicial effect on the other structures or land and it is not of general ecological consequence of a prejudicial kind. 10. Upon Consideration of the application, the Government may call for further details in order to ensure that the use to which the portion /the property is to be put, will not result in any violations of the provisions of the Act or that it will not lead to any deleterious effect upon the other structures, land and the greenery within the Palace property. 11. The application for permission sought for, shall be made at least one month prior to the proposed date of commencement of use. After consideration of each case on merits, the Government may grant permission or to decline the same, if in its opinion, such use is not to be permitted in the interest of preserving the heritage character of the property and ecological considerations. The Government shall be entitled to impose a condition that no tree in the Palace property shall be cut during the period of use and no other activity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said Property in the State can remain subject to litigation and its fate would naturally depend upon the finality in the litigation. 37. We would also like to quote the meaning of both these terms ownership and belonging to , from some leading Dictionaries which are as follows:- 38. The word ownership is quoted as follows: (1) Advanced Law Lexicon [3rd Edition Reprint 2007] Ownership. The collection of rights allowing one to use and enjoy property, including the right to convey it to others. Ownership implies the right to possess a thing, regardless of any actual or constructive control. Ownership rights are general, permanent and inheritable. Ownership , in its most comprehensive signification, denotes the relation between a person and right that is vested in him. That which a man owns is in all cases a right, when, as is often the case, we speak of the ownership of a material object, this is merely a convenient figure of speech. To own a piece of land means in truth to own a particular kind of right in the land, namely, the fee simple of it. Ownership consists of innumerable rights over property, for example, the rights of exclusive en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e words belonging to in S. 4(1) Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 57 of 1947 import a concept of ownership. They mean very much the same thing as of the ownership of though not necessarily of the absolute ownership. Laxmipat v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd., AIR 1951 Bom 205,208. Building erection on plot taken in auction for 999 Years lease. The lessor after the building was erected became the owner of it and all the time thereafter the demised premises which includes the building have belonged to him subject to the right of enjoyment of the lessee in terms of the lease. Bhatia Co-op housing Society Ltd. v, D.C.Patel, AIR 1953 SC 16, 21 The word belonging to , though capable of denoting an absolute title, can also signify of even possession of an interest less than that of full ownership. The words belonging to me do not amount to a disclaimer of the tenancy and a repudiation of the landlord s title. Mohd. Amir v. Municipal Board. Sitapur. AIR 1965 SC 1923, 1929. Stroud s English Dictionary BELONG; BELONGING. (1) Property belonging to a person, has two general meanings, (1) ownership, (2) the absolute right of user. (2) A th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s such a person to be the owner of that building or property and allows taxability in his hands even though the title in favour of the Assessees is not yet crystallized and only on the basis of possession and in part performance of the Contract to purchase that the asset under Section 53-A of the T.P.Act, the Assessee retains the possession thereof. 43. The intention of the Legislature is, therefore, obvious i.e. to throw the tax net under the provisions of the Wealth-Tax a little wider and not to cover only the owners of the assets stricto sensu. 44. In this perspective, we find ourselves fortified in taking the view that the assets in question namely urban lands belonging to Assessees for which they are not only claiming ownership through litigation but are undoubtedly in possession, dominion and control but also in user of the land yielding income therefrom, they cannot be held to be outside the tax net under the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957. 45. We may add here that the words urban land by definition only is required to geographically fall within the Municipal limits and there is no dispute on this issue in the present case and the issue is raised only with reference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessed on the basis of the share of the income in the hands of the assessee and not as of a Hindu undivided family. It was held that the position was not different under the Wealth-tax Act. The matter was brought to this Court on appeal and it was conceded by the Solicitor General appearing for the Commissioner of Wealth-tax that as the property was the individual property of the deceased, it devolved on his heirs in severalty. It was held that as each of them took a definite and separate share in the property, each of them was liable, in law, to pay wealth-tax as an individual. While upholding the decision of the High Court it was however observed by this Court that it was not necessary to decide, in that case, whether a Dayabhaga family could be considered as a Hindu undivided family within the meaning of section 3 of the Act. That decision is Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Gauri Shankar Bhar. In the case before us, it is not in dispute that the property in question was the individual property of Bireswar Chatterjee and that it devolved on his heirs according to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It will be recalled that a suit for partition was filed on June ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chatterjee (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the liability to Wealth-Tax arises because of the belonging of the asset and not otherwise and mere possession, or joint possession, unaccompanied by the right to be in possession or ownership of property, would, therefore, not bring the property within the definition of net wealth . 53. Quoting from the Stroud s jurisprudence, the Hon ble Supreme Court discussed the concept of ownership and belonging to in the following manner:- The material expression with which we are concerned in this appeal is belonging to the assessee on the valuation date . Did the assets in the circumstances mentioned herein before, namely the properties in respect of which registered sale deeds had not been executed but consideration for sale of which had been received and possession in respect of which had been handed over the purchasers belong to the assessee for the purpose of inclusion in his net wealth? Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act gives the party in possession, in those circumstances, the right to retain possession. Where a contract has been executed in terms mentioned herein before and full consideration has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in the case of Jodha Mal Kuthiala (R.B) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC), the Hon ble Supreme Court in the same judgment of Nawab Sir Mir s case(supra) proceeded to discuss these concepts in the following manner:- In the instant case, as we have noticed, the position is different. We are not concerned with the expression owner . We are concerned whether the assets, in the facts and circumstances of the case, belonged to the assessee any more. This Court had occasion to discuss section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the meaning of the expression owner in the case of R.B.Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC). There it was held that for the purpose of section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the owner must be the person who can exercise the rights of the owner, not on behalf of the owner but his own right. An assessee whose property remained vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property was not the owner of the property. This again, as observed, dealt with the expression of section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. At page 575 of the report, certain observations were relied upon in order to stress ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 22, the Hon ble Apex Court held in the aforesaid case of Podar Cement Pvt.Ltd. and others (supra) that income would be taxable under Section 22 even if the properties are not properly conveyed and registered in favour of the Assessees in the case before us, we cannot hold otherwise that even though the possession, dominion and control of the Asset (urban land) and income yielding continues in the hands of the Assessees and only the question of ownership is open to litigation, the Assessees should not be taxed under the provisions of the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957. 59. The contention of the learned counsel for the Assessees is that the right of the Assessees over the said urban lands is only a contingency right depending upon the fate of litigation pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Assessees have no vested right in view of the BPAT Act, 1996 over the lands in question and therefore the taxability in their hands does not arise. 60. The contention raised is that the words belonging to have three facets, viz. i] vested right; ii] contingency right; and iii] spes successionis (hope to succeed viz. in the case of a Will becoming operative). 61. We ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed are owner , there can be no dispute that belonging to has to be given a much wider connotation than owner . The Judgment in Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. s case (supra) is by a Bench of three Judges and in this case the judgment of the Apex Court in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan s case (supra) has been specifically noticed and distinguished. Therefore, we are bound to follow the judgment in Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. s case (supra). Furthermore, we are also in agreement with the Full Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the words belonging to have to be read along with the explanation of Section 4 and under this explanation the expression of transfer includes any agreement or arrangement. The assessee, in the present case, was allotted the land by the State Government. It constructed shops thereupon and rented out the same and derived income there from. The sheds were therefore under the domain and control of the assessee. Even if legal ownership had not passed to the assessee the property in question belonged to it. The assessee was deriving rental income and collecting the same which itself shows that it was the assessee to whom the property belonged. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lalji Haridas Vs. Income Tax Officer [1961] 43 ITR 387 (SC); 4. Bhagmal Saudagar Mal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Allahabad HC) [2004] 267 ITR 0637; 5. New Jahangir Vakil Mills Co.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [1963] 49 ITR 137 (SC); 69. Protective , precautionary or alternate assessment is an assessment which is made ex- abundanti cautela by the Assessing Authority and is therefore called protective or Precautionary Assessment or alternative assessment. When the Department has any doubt as to the person who is or will be deemed to be in receipt of the income, protective or alternative assessments are permitted. Thus, there is no double assessment if the first assessment is void. 70. It is no doubt true that the Income Tax Act/Wealth-Tax Act nowhere provides that a protective or precautionary assessment can be raised in respect of one and the same income/wealth on two different persons. A departmental practice that has however gained judicial recognition is that, in certain circumstances, where it appears to the Income-Tax Authorities that certain income has been received during the relevant assessment year but it is not clear who has received th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ON WEALTH-TAX EXIGIBILITY FOR A.Y.1999-2000 TO A.Y. 2004-05: 73. Upon the final decision of the Hon ble Apex Court, upholding the validity of The Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act,1996 , the title of the lands may be divested from the appointed date 21/11/1996 or a later date but the levy under the Wealth-Tax Act can still hold the ground on the basis of interpretation of the key words belonging to construed to be of wider import and the possession, dominion and control of the urban lands having remained with the Respondent Assessees on the respective Valuation dates relevant to A.Y.1999-2000 to A.Y. 2004-05 in question. 74. On the other hand, if the appeals of the Assessees are allowed by the Apex Court and the BPAT Act, 1996 is struck down, the clear title and ownership of the Assessees would emerge further fortifying their liability to pay Wealth-Tax on such urban lands as owners , even though during the period of their litigation, their Wealth-Tax liability is still enforceable upon substantive Assessments as the said urban land continues to belong to them, irrespective of litigation, on the respective Valuation Dates relevant to thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
