TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Delhi [ in short 'the Assessing Officer'] for assessment year 2014-15. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred both on the facts and in law in confirming the action of Assessing officer in assessing the value of immovable property at Rs. 6,39,10,92,000/- .No justification on the basis of arrival and no details of addition have been provided. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred both on the facts and in law in confirming the action of Assessing officer in assessing the value of dynasty jewellery at Rs. 9,00,00,000/-.No reason or cause of addition has been mentioned. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and died intestate on 24/06/1970. He referred to the copy of civil suit filed before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court for determination of inheritance of various properties, available on page 40 - 58 of the paperbook. The Ld. counsel claimed that as on date said civil suit is pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. According to him the decision of the said proceeding would affect the determination of net wealth in the hands of the assessee as well as other claimants. He further submitted that the identical issue of determination of the net wealth in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2002-03 to 2007-08 in WTA number 49 to 54 has been restored to the file of the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication after the decision o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct/Wealth-tax Act in the status of HUF claiming that entire estate of the deceased Maharaja belonged to the HUF after his demise and that Col.Bhawani Singh was its karta. The Revenue, on the other hand took the stand that the estate belonged to late Maharaja as an individual and after his death all his six heirs inherited the estate in their individual capacities. The matter went upto the Tribunal and the Tribunal held vide its order dated 24.12.1979 for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 that correct status is HUF upto the period 1970. Subsequently, the Tribunal vide its order dated 4.4.1986 for assessment year 1971-72 to 1977-78 held in the case of Maharaja Prithvi Raj, smaller HUF that no partition of bigger HUF took place and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is making protective asstt. On possible assessees. The revenue of the department is, therefore1, secured. The various assessees are busy fighting with each other in the Civil Court. In order that the dispute pending in the Civil Court is in no way jeopardize by any decision in these references and also in order that there may be no conflict of the decision, it would be appropriate, in our opinion, that these references are adjourned sine die with the direction that they may be taken up for hearing after the Civil Suit being Suit^No.870/86 entitled Maharaja Jagat Singh & Ors. Vs. Lt.Co. Bhawani Singh & Ors. which is pending in this Court is finally decided." In the light of above directions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Income-tax Appe....