COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX Vs. PREETILATA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that some agricultural land belonging to the assessee was acquired by the State Govt. under the Land Acquisition Act. The relevant notification was issued on 7th December, 1961, and the Govt. took possession on 7th March, 1962. The assessee claimed compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer by an order dated 9th May, 1963, determined the compensation payable at Rs. 98,430. The assessee applied for a reference. The learned Civil & Sessions Judge on 29th September, 1964, determined the compensation payable at Rs. 2,92,690 in addition to the amount already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, viz., Rs. 98,430. On 28th February, 1968, the assessee filed her returns under the W.T. Act for the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. In all the three returns she showed the value of the asset which was represented by the compensation awarded to her at Rs. 98,430. The WTO rejected the returned amount holding that the correct value of the asset was Rs. 98,430 plus Rs. 2,92,690, the additional amount awarded by the Civil & Sessions Judge. This view was upheld by the AAC. The assessee went up in appeal before the Tribunal.

(2.) For the subsequent two years, viz., 1965-66 and 1966-67, for which the valuation dates were 27th October, 1964 and 27t October, 1965, respectively, the Tribunal held that the higher amount was liable to be treated as the value of the asset, viz., the compensation payable for the acquired property, but for the assessment year 1964-65 the compensation which could be included in assessee's net wealth was the amount determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, because the Tribunal took the view that the assessee actually received the additional amount awarded by the Civil & Sessions Judge on 3rd December, 1966, and till then the award was only a notional one, which was in dispute before the High Court in an appeal filed by the Govt.

(3.) The Tribunal has submitted this statement of the case and referred the following question of law for our opinion :