COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RASIKLAL KANTILAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference pertains to four assessment years, namely, 1964 65, 1965 66, 1966 67 and 1967 68. Four different appeals were filed by the assessee and four cross appeals were filed by the Revenue against four separate orders passed by the AAC. Even before the Tribunal four separate applications were filed for making reference to this Court. Even then the Tribunal has thought it fit to make only one reference. Really the Tribunal ought to have made four separate references. Since the Tribunal has failed to do so, we direct the office to treat Ref. No. 3/80 as reference with respect to asst. year 1964 65 only and give separate numbers as IT Ref No. 3A/80, 3B/80 and 3C/80 to references in respect of asst. yrs. 1965 66, 1966 67 and 1967 68 respectively. As the questions which arise for consideration in these four references are the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. The questions, which have been referred by the Tribunal under S. 256(1) of the IT Act are as under :

(2.) THE assessee was the owner of the property which came to be acquired subsequently by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. As the property continued to vest in the assessee till 30th Sept., 1988, the assessee showed that property as his property in the WT return filed for the said assessment years. As the property was in possession of tenants the assessee after getting the valuation done by an approved valuer valued it at Rs. 1,28,836. It appears that in respect of the front portion of the said property, notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 22nd March, 1983 and in respect of the rear portion the notification was issued on 27th July, 1967. The WTO did not accept the valuation put upon the property by the assessee and on the basis of the amount received by the assessee by way of compensation, fixed the market value of the property at Rs. 6,50,000. He took into consideration the fact that in respect of the front portion, the assessee was paid Rs. 1,06,304 and for the rear portion he had got Rs. 4,25,000. He also took into consideration the fact that even the assessee had contended that the said compensation was not adequate and actually he had challenged the awards for obtaining higher compensation. He, therefore, fixed the market value of the entire property at Rs. 6,50,000.

(3.) NEITHER the assessee, nor the Department was satisfied with the said order passed by the AAC and, therefore, both of them preferred appeals to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the assessee raised the same contentions. The Tribunal took note of the fact that separate awards were passed, and that the assessee was paid compensation amount on different dates. It also took note of the fact that the assessee was paid interest for the period 12th March, 1967 to 17th Nov., 1969. It also took note of the fact that possession was taken between 20th Jan., 1971 and 17th March, 1973 on four different dates. It then accepted the contention of the assessee that the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer would not be relevant for determining the valuation of the property of the assessee on the valuation date. It, however, on the basis of the following reasoning allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal filed by the Department.