Cwt Vs. Gaju - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
counsels: shambhoo chopra, for the applicant head note: income tax wealth tax valuation--landcompensation received on compulsory acquisition of landassessee|s land was acquired by the special land acquisition officer (slao) on different dates. compensation for these lands was also announced. as per slao|s first order dated 25-3-1980, for the first portion of plots of land, possession of which was taken on 14-12-1977, the rate of rs. 2.80 per sq. yds. had been announced, whereas for the second and third plots of land acquired on 25-3-1980 and 25-2-1981 respectively, the rate of rs. 17.50 was announced vide slao|s order dated 5-9-1984. in the year 1984, the land acquisition act was amended by virtue of which the assessee became entitled to get enhanced compensation which was awarded suo motu by the slao after the passing of the land acquisition (amendment) act, 1984. the assessee had disclosed the value of compensation awarded prior to passing of the land acquisition (amendment) act, 1984 whereas the assessing authority had assessed the value of the land as per enhanced compensation. the first appellate authority took value of land universally at 2.80 per sq.yd. the tribunal allowed assessee|s appeal taking compensation amount @ rs. 2.80 per sq. yard for the entire land acquired, instead of different rates for different dates.held: where compnsation on different rates, on different dates, was awarded by the land acquisition officer the compensation was to be assessed on different rates based on different dates. wealth tax act, 1957 s.7 in the allahabad high court r.k. agrawal & k.n. ojha, jj. section 7 of the wealth-tax act, 1957 - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammadorderby the court income-tax appellate tribunal, delhi, has referred the following question of law under section 27(3) of the wealth-tax act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), for opinion to this act:'whether in the circumstances of the case, the itat was legally correct to confirm the order of the deputy commissioner (appeals) on the point of value of land at the rate of rs. 2.80 per sq. yds. ?'2. the present reference relates to the assessment years 1979-80 to 1984-85.3. briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :the land belonging to the respondent had been notified for acquisition under u.p. avas evam vikas parishad act and under section 4(1) of land acquisition act, 1894 for the scheme of shastri nagar, meerut, on 9-5-1970. the possession of the land under section 17 of the land acquisition act was taken under section 17 of the land acquisition act on different dates which are as follows: 1. on 14-12-1977 as per slao order dated 25-3-1980,43,432 sq. yds.2. on 25-3-1980 as per slao order dated 5-9-1984, 14,420 sq. yds.3. on 25-2-1981 as per slao order dated 5-9-1984, 6,655 sq. yds.compensation for these lands was also announced is per first order dated 25-3-1980 at the rate of rs. 2.80 per sq. yds. had been announced whereas for the second and third plots of land the rate of rs. 17.50 was announced. in the year 1894, the land acquisition act was amended by virtue of which the respondent became entitled to enhanced compensation which was awarded suo motu by the special land acquisition officer after the passing of the land acquisition (amendment) act, 1894. the respondent had disclosed the value of enhanced compensation awarded prior to passing of the land acquisition (amendment) act, 1894 whereas the assessing authority has assessed the value of the land as per enhanced compensation. the tribunal has observed that the deputy commissioner (appeals) had recorded a finding of fact in his appellate order, that the respondent had not filed any appeal against the order of acquisition or the rate of compensation awarded to him. the tribunal has, accordingly, held that the respondent was entitled to the compensation at the rate at which it was granted prior to passing of the said order. the respondent had disclosed the value of enhanced compensation at rs. 1,50,000 for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1983-84 and a sum of rs. 2,00,000, for the assessment year 1984-85. there was no dispute with regard to the value disclosed by the respondent on account of right to receive enhanced compensation. the dispute before the tribunal related to the valuation of land and the compensation receivable in respect of the said land. the tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held that the respondent was not entitled to receive additional compensation by virtue of land acquisition (amendment) act, 1894 till the said act was passed and, accordingly, such compensation could not be held as an asset for the period prior to coming into force of the said amendment act.4. we have heard sri shambhoo chopra, learned standing counsel for the revenue. nobody has appeared for the respondent.5. learned standing counsel for the revenue submitted that the special land acquisition officer had awarded rs. 2.80 per sq. yds. compensation for that portion of land which was acquired on 14-12-1977 and rs. 17.50 per sq. yds. for the land acquired on 25-3-1980 and 25-2-1981, therefore, the value of the land cannot be universally taken at rs. 2.80 per sq. yds. the submission appears to have some force. as the special land acquisition officer had himself awarded the compensation on different dates and rates, the amount awarded as compensation should have been taken as respective value of the land.6. we, accordingly, answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. however, there shall be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

By the Court

Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following question of law under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion to this Act:

'Whether in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was legally correct to confirm the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on the point of value of land at the rate of Rs. 2.80 per sq. yds. ?'

2. The present Reference relates to the assessment years 1979-80 to 1984-85.

3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :

The land belonging to the respondent had been notified for acquisition under U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act and under section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the scheme of Shastri Nagar, Meerut, on 9-5-1970. The possession of the land under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was taken under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act on different dates which are as follows:

1. On 14-12-1977 as per SLAO order dated 25-3-1980,43,432 sq. yds.

2. On 25-3-1980 as per SLAO order dated 5-9-1984, 14,420 sq. yds.

3. On 25-2-1981 as per SLAO order dated 5-9-1984, 6,655 sq. yds.

Compensation for these lands was also announced is per first order dated 25-3-1980 at the rate of Rs. 2.80 per sq. yds. had been announced whereas for the second and third plots of land the rate of Rs. 17.50 was announced. In the year 1894, the Land Acquisition Act was amended by virtue of which the respondent became entitled to enhanced compensation which was awarded suo motu by the Special Land Acquisition Officer after the passing of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894. The respondent had disclosed the value of enhanced compensation awarded prior to passing of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894 whereas the assessing authority has assessed the value of the land as per enhanced compensation. The Tribunal has observed that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) had recorded a finding of fact in his appellate order, that the respondent had not filed any appeal against the order of Acquisition or the rate of compensation awarded to him. The Tribunal has, accordingly, held that the respondent was entitled to the compensation at the rate at which it was granted prior to passing of the said order. The respondent had disclosed the value of enhanced compensation at Rs. 1,50,000 for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1983-84 and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000, for the assessment year 1984-85. There was no dispute with regard to the value disclosed by the respondent on account of right to receive enhanced compensation. The dispute before the Tribunal related to the valuation of land and the compensation receivable in respect of the said land. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held that the respondent was not entitled to receive additional compensation by virtue of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894 till the said Act was passed and, accordingly, such compensation could not be held as an asset for the period prior to coming into force of the said Amendment Act.

4. We have heard Sri Shambhoo Chopra, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue. Nobody has appeared for the respondent.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the revenue submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded Rs. 2.80 per sq. yds. Compensation for that portion of land which was acquired on 14-12-1977 and Rs. 17.50 per sq. yds. for the land acquired on 25-3-1980 and 25-2-1981, therefore, the value of the land cannot be universally taken at Rs. 2.80 per sq. yds. The submission appears to have some force. As the Special Land Acquisition Officer had himself awarded the compensation on different dates and rates, the amount awarded as compensation should have been taken as respective value of the land.

6. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. However, there shall be no order as to costs.