COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. PARMINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS identical questions of law and facts are involved in the aforesaid appeals, pertaining to the asst. yrs. 1998 -99, 1999 -2000, 2000 -01, 2001 -02, 2002 -03 and 2003 -04, under the provisions of the WT Act, 1957 (for short "the WT Act"), having arisen out of the same impugned order, therefore, we propose to dispose of the same, vide this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, for facilitation, the bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention have been extracted from WT Appeal No. 31 of 2009.

(2.) THE matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement of, relevant for disposal of present appeals filed by the Revenue against the ultimate legal heir of Smt. Soma Devi (since deceased) respondent -assessee Parminder Singh (for brevity "the assessee") and emanating from the record, is that, originally, Soma Devi (deceased), mother of Jarnail Singh, was the owner and in possession of the land in question, situated in village Sultanwind (urban) and (sub -urban), District Amritsar. She died on 12th May, 2000. During her lifetime, Soma Devi had sold a piece of land measuring 2 kanals 3 marlas to M/s Guru Ram Dass Charitable Trust, for a consideration of Rs. 5,37,500 on 24th April, 1998. However, subsequently, the remaining entire land was acquired by the Government under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as "the LA Act") for Improvement Trust, vide notification dt. 17th Nov., 2000. Having completed all the codal formalities, the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter to be referred as "the Collector") determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 53,20,908, vide award dt. 28th Nov., 2003. However, the Government had further allowed increase at the rate of 12 per cent per annum as appreciation in the valuation of acquired land.

(3.) IN the wake of show -cause notice, the assessee filed the reply/return of wealth and explained that the reasons to believe that the limit of net wealth chargeable to tax had exceeded and escaped assessment, is based on and emerged out of non -existent facts, as Smt. Soma Devi did not own any urban land on the valuation date 31st March, 1998 at any place in India. Thus, the initiation of proceedings was invalid. In all, according to the assessee that as the land in question did not come under the purview of assets, therefore, he is not liable to pay wealth -tax. It will not be out of place to mention here that the assessee stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the show -cause notice and prayed for its reversal.