TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) or Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, no substantial question of law has been framed. In that view of the matter, it will not be appropriate to allow these review petitions. If the department desires they may get clarification from the Supreme Court. We cannot sit over the decision of Supreme Court in appeal, since Supreme Court has already decided the issue and we have followed the same. The other contention regarding exemption u/s 10 (19A) given to the palace, in our considered opinion, Ruler, individual or HUF is not required to be considered at this stage. It will be open for the department to get clarified the same from the Supreme Court. - D.B. Civil Review No. 98 to 139 / 2017 - - - Dated:- 2-11-2017 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 35. In our considered opinion, if the Legislature intended to spilt the Palace in part(s), alike houses for taxing the subject, it would have said so by employing appropriate language in Section 10(19A) of the I.T. Act. We, however, do not find such language employed in Section 10(19A). 36. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, Section 23(2) and (3), uses the expression house or part of a house . Such expression does not find place in Section 10(19A) of the I.T. Act. Likewise, we do not find any such expression in Section 23, specifically dealing with the cases relating to palace . This significant departure of the words in Section 10(19A) of the I.T. Act and Section 23 also suggest that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enty sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, was recognised by the President as the Ruler of an Indian State or any person who, at any time before such commencement, was recognised by the President as the successor of such Ruler; 7. We have heard counsel for the parties. 7.1 The contention emphasised before the Supreme Court was palace not Ruler . Therefore, we have considered only the same. Though one of the ground (C) of the memo of appeal reads as under:- C. That the order of Tribunal is erroneous as the property in question is exempt from Income Tax and Wealth Tax, only for the Ex-Ruler who happens to be His Highness Late Sh. Maharao Bhim Singh Ji. But in the instant case the assessee who is the legal heir of Ex-Ruler Shri Bhim Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the words Ruler Occupation . The expression Ruler as per the definition (effective from 28.12.1971) in Article 366(22) of the Constitution of India, means the Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time before the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, was recognized by the President as the Ruler of an Indian State or any person who, at any time before such commencement, was recognized by the President as the successor of such Ruler. It is submitted here that Ex-Ruler Maharao Bhim Singhji has expired in the year 1991 and the President of India has not accorded/recognized the mandatory succession certificate as required for the assessee to become the Successor of such Ruler . Therefore, in abse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while matter was pending before the Supreme Court, same position was existing. Since legal heirs are on record right from 1992 and the question whether the legal heirs is Ruler or not was never raised before the AO, CIT(A) or Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, no substantial question of law has been framed. 9. In that view of the matter, it will not be appropriate to allow these review petitions. If the department desires they may get clarification from the Supreme Court. We cannot sit over the decision of Supreme Court in appeal, since Supreme Court has already decided the issue and we have followed the same. 10. The other contention regarding exemption u/s 10 (19A) given to the palace, in our considered opinion, Ruler, individual or HUF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
