Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Urmila Devi - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - at the first appellate stage the assessee got the desired relief and the matter having been carried to the stage of the income-tax appellate tribunal, the revenue met failure.1. the income-tax appellate tribunal, delhi, has referred the following question of law under section 27(1) of the wealth-tax act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as 'the act' for the opinion to this court :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of rs. 1,00,000 under section 5(1)(iv) against the value of her share in m/s. amarpali cinema in which she was a partner ?'2. the respondent-assessee is a resident-individual. the assessment years involved are 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 with respective valuation dates being march 31, 1974, march 31, 1975 and may 31, 1976. at the assessment stage the assessee claimed exemption to the tune of rs. 1,00,000 in respect of land and building belonging to the firm, m/s. amarpali cinema, meerut, wherein the assessee was a partner having 20 per cent. share in the profits/losses. the exemption was claimed under section 5(1)(iv) of the act, but the assessing officer negatived the claim with the reasoning that the assessee was not the owner of the land and building since it belonged to the firm. at the first appellate stage the assessee got the desired relief and the matter having been carried to the stage of the income-tax appellate tribunal, the revenue met failure.3. we have heard sri a. n. mahajan, learned counsel for the revenue, and sri r. s. agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee.4. learned counsel for the revenue submitted that under section 5(1)(iv) of the act exemption is granted to one house or part of a house belonging to the assessee and not to a cinema building as by no stretch of imagination a cinema building can be said to be a house.5. sri r. s. agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee relied upon a decision of this court in the case of cit v. vinod kumar [1999] uptc 606 and submitted that even cinema building is entitled for exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the act. it may be mentioned here that the exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the act is available to one house or part of a house belonging to the assessee. the house is a place where people live and by no stretch of imagination the cinema building can be said to be a house as nobody lives or inhabits. a division bench of this court in the case of cit v. jai kishan gupta : [2003]264itr482(all) has held that exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the act is not available to a cinema building as it is not a building for human habitation or a dwelling or a home and a cinema hall is not a house at all.6. we are in respectful agreement with the view taken in the case of jai kishan gupta : [2003]264itr482(all) . so far as the decision relied upon by sri r. s. agarwal is concerned, it may be mentioned here that this court had not considered the word 'house' used in section 5(1)(iv) of the act and had simply held that interest in the immovable property is exempt. in wealth-tax reference no. 288 of 1983 (cwt v. smt. angoori devi : [2005]273itr500(all) decided on august 10, 2004), we have held that an assessee is not entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the act in respect of his/her share in the cinema building.7. in view of the foregoing discussion, we answer the question of law referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. however, the parties shall bear their own costs.