SULTANALI CASSAMALI JAIRAJBHOY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Jetley, learned counsel for the Department, has pointed out that though there are as many as eleven questions raised by the assessee as questions of law, the real questions are only three. According to him, questions Nos. 1 to 4 relate to the direct assessment on the beneficiaries in terms of S. 21(2) of the WT Act, 1957. Questions Nos. 5 and 6, he stated, have become infructuous in view of the Tribunal's order on the assessee's Miscellaneous Application No. 208 (Bom)/87. Questions Nos. 7 to 11, he stated, pertain to the valuation of the assessee's share in the property owned jointly by him along with three other co owners. As regards questions Nos. 1 to 4, Mr. Jetley invited our attention to the provisions of S. 21(2) which leave no scope for doubt that it was open to, the WTO to assess the beneficiaries directly. Regarding questions Nos. 7 to 11, he stated that compensation of Rs. 9,76,490 was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The assessee had one fifth share which comes to Rs. 1,95,278. He pointed out that it was never the case of the assessee that there were 224 claimants and that no amount was awarded to the assessee .

(2.) MR . Shivram, learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, stated that the WTO having already exercised the option of assessing the trustees direct, it was not open to the WTO to thereafter make assessments on the beneficiaries. As regards the valuation of the assessee's interest in the immovable property, he pointed out that over the years, this property was let out for a paltry sum of Rs. 315 per month. The tenant was a protected one. No doubt this property was acquired in the year 1973 compulsorily, but when the compensation of Rs. 9 lakhs and odd was awarded, no part thereof was paid or determined as payable to the assessee. The entire amount of compensation was deposited in the Court and in fact the award did not even apportion the amount of compensation amongst the different claimants, who included the 224 tenants also. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the issue involved in the first set of four questions is a neat question of law. There is no need to direct the Tribunal to draw up a supplementary statement of the case and refer those questions to us for opinion as the answer to the questions is obvious. Sec. 21(2) clearly envisages d irect assessment on the beneficiaries notwithstanding the provisions of Sub S. (1) of S. 21. As regards the second set of questions, however, i.e., questions Nos. 7 to 11, we are inclined to hold that the matter requires a closer examination. Accordingly, we make the rule absolute with regard to questions Nos. 7 to 11. However, we will reframe the question of law as under :