Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1982 (11) TMI 48

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the W.T. Act, 1957, in respect of his entire palace at Rampur known as Khas Bagh Palace. It is common ground that the Khas Bagh Palace consisted of a number of buildings. . Some of these buildings were actually occupied by the Ruler but quite a few of them were not so occupied and were let out to various tenants. A list of fourteen such buildings which were let out to various officers, departments and other tenants has been set out in the order of the Tribunal. The assessee claimed that he was entitled to the exemption of the value of the entire Khas Bagh Palace including the above fourteen buildings under the provisions of s. 5(1)(iii) referred to above. That provision, at the relevant date, read as follows : " 5. (1) Wealth-tax shall n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... very narrow one regarding the interpretation of s. 5(1)(iii). . It is admitted that under para. 13 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, the Central Govt. declared Khas Bagh Palace, Rampur, as the official residence of the Ruler of Rampur. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, since the Tribunal has accepted his contention that the entire palace should be treated as " one building " for the purposes of the W.T. Act, the assessee was entitled to exemption in respect of the value of that building so long as it was substantially in the occupation of the Ruler. Learned counsel submits that the exemption granted to a Ruler in respect of his official residence cannot be denied merely because a small or insignificant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der the Rent Control Act. Though the question raised in this reference is somewhat ticklish, we are of opinion that the Tribunal arrived at the correct conclusion on this issue. The difficulty has arisen because the notification under para. 13 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, relates not to buildings but to palaces as such. Apparently the reasons for s. 5(1)(iii) using the words " any one building " is only to ensure that the exemption is confined to only one palace. For, in the case of certain Rulers more than one palace was notified as the official residence under the said Order, for example, in the case of the Ruler of Rampur himself not only the Khas Bagh Palace but also the Shahbad Castle was notified as the o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lfilled. The insistence of the assessee's counsel that the entire palace should be treated as one building does not really help him. For, strictly speaking, it could be said that since the entire palace, which constitutes the building for our present purpose, is not in the occupation of the Ruler, he is not at all entitled to exemption in respect of the palace. This would be a very extreme position. Neither the officer nor the appellate authorities have taken this view. The Tribunal has placed a liberal construction on the provisions of the statute, consistent with its objects and intendment, and it has held that the assessee would be entitled to the exemption in respect of the palace to the extent it is occupied by the Ruler but will not b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pletely denying any exemption to the assessee or as conferring on him a benefit of exemption to the extent of occupation of the building by the Ruler. In our opinion, the Tribunal, in adopting the second of these interpretation has construed the provision in a liberal manner, consistent with the objects of the statute and its intendment, and also given effect to its language in such a way as to benefit the assessee. We are, therefore, of opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was correct. We, therefore answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. However, we think that this is a case in which the parties should be directed to bear their own costs. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Wea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates