Shri Gaj Singh Vs. The Settlement Commissioner & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 895-911 of 1991
Petitioner: Shri Gaj Singh
Respondent: The Settlement Commissioner & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 895-911 of 1991
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, M.B. SHAH & RUMA PAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 19, 2000
Head Note:
WEALTH TAX
Wealth Tax Act, 1957
Sections 5(1)(ivb), 5(i)(xii) – Exemption – Sardar Samand Palace and Jodhpur Fort – Exemption claimed on grounds that Sardar Samand was in vicinity of agricultural land – Umed Bhawan opted – Fort, not an archaeological collection. Held that no exemption can be claimed in respect of these two properties.(Paras 3 to 5)
Cases Reffered:
1. Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Son (JT 1994 (6) SC 446)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Under challenge before us is an order passed by the Settlement Commission in respect of the assessee appellant, Gaj Singh, the erstwhile Maharaja of Jodhpur. Leave was granted restricted to the following three questions:
“1) Whether the immovable properties referred to in para 7 of the Settlement Commission’s order should be valued under Rule I BB even for assessment years prior to 1979-1980;
2) Whether the value of the Sardar Samand Palace is exempt from Wealth Tax under Section 5(1)(iv) or (ivb) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957;
3) Whether the value of the Jodhpur Fort is exempt under Section 5(1)(xii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957;
2. It is not in dispute that the first question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, being covered by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Son (JT 1994 (6) SC 446).
3. As to the second question, Section 5 of the Wealth Tax Act states that “wealth-tax shall not be payable by an assessee in respect of the following assets, and such assets shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee………(iv) one house or part of a house belonging to the assessee……(ivb) one building or one group of buildings owned by a cultivator of, or receiver of rent or revenue out of, agricultural land: Provided that such building or group of buildings is on or in the immediate vicinity of the land and is required by the cultivator or the receiver of rent or revenue, by reason of his connection with the land”.
4. The asseesee opted to adopt the Umed Bhavan Palace as his house for the purposes of exemption under Section 5(1)(iii), which is specific for the purpose. It is difficult to see how he could seek exemption for another house, namely, the Sardar Samand Palace under Clause (iv).
5. Insofar as Clause (ivb) is concerned, the only material that learned Counsel for the assessee relies upon, is the argument of the assessee’s representative before the Commission that the Sardar Samand Palace was situated in the Sardar Samand village, in the vicinity of the assessee’s agricultural land and that it was used as ” a dwelling unit, stalls and cattle sheds”. The Commission has not delivered any finding in regard to Clause (ivb) because, as is apparent, the claim of the assessee before it was not based thereon. It was only because of the statement of the assessee’s representative, quoted above, which seemed to meet the requirements of Clause (ivb) that the argument was advanced before us. In any event, a statement of that nature is not proof of any kind. The claim under Clause (ivb) is rejected.
6. As to the third question, the argument is that the Jodhpur Fort is exempt under Clause (xii) of Section 5(1). That Clause reads: “any works of art, archaeological, scientific or art collections, books or manuscripts belonging to the assessee and not intended for sale”. The Jodhpur Fort is an archaeological site; it is not an archaeological collection or book or manuscript and, therefore, the exemption under Clause (xxii) is not available.
7. Accordingly, the first question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The second and third questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
8. Order on the civil appeals accordingly.
9. No order as to costs.
1. Under challenge before us is an order passed by the Settlement Commission in respect of the assessee appellant, Gaj Singh, the erstwhile Maharaja of Jodhpur. Leave was granted restricted to the following three questions:
“1) Whether the immovable properties referred to in para 7 of the Settlement Commission’s order should be valued under Rule I BB even for assessment years prior to 1979-1980;
2) Whether the value of the Sardar Samand Palace is exempt from Wealth Tax under Section 5(1)(iv) or (ivb) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957;
3) Whether the value of the Jodhpur Fort is exempt under Section 5(1)(xii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957;
2. It is not in dispute that the first question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, being covered by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Son (JT 1994 (6) SC 446).
3. As to the second question, Section 5 of the Wealth Tax Act states that “wealth-tax shall not be payable by an assessee in respect of the following assets, and such assets shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee………(iv) one house or part of a house belonging to the assessee……(ivb) one building or one group of buildings owned by a cultivator of, or receiver of rent or revenue out of, agricultural land: Provided that such building or group of buildings is on or in the immediate vicinity of the land and is required by the cultivator or the receiver of rent or revenue, by reason of his connection with the land”.
4. The asseesee opted to adopt the Umed Bhavan Palace as his house for the purposes of exemption under Section 5(1)(iii), which is specific for the purpose. It is difficult to see how he could seek exemption for another house, namely, the Sardar Samand Palace under Clause (iv).
5. Insofar as Clause (ivb) is concerned, the only material that learned Counsel for the assessee relies upon, is the argument of the assessee’s representative before the Commission that the Sardar Samand Palace was situated in the Sardar Samand village, in the vicinity of the assessee’s agricultural land and that it was used as ” a dwelling unit, stalls and cattle sheds”. The Commission has not delivered any finding in regard to Clause (ivb) because, as is apparent, the claim of the assessee before it was not based thereon. It was only because of the statement of the assessee’s representative, quoted above, which seemed to meet the requirements of Clause (ivb) that the argument was advanced before us. In any event, a statement of that nature is not proof of any kind. The claim under Clause (ivb) is rejected.
6. As to the third question, the argument is that the Jodhpur Fort is exempt under Clause (xii) of Section 5(1). That Clause reads: “any works of art, archaeological, scientific or art collections, books or manuscripts belonging to the assessee and not intended for sale”. The Jodhpur Fort is an archaeological site; it is not an archaeological collection or book or manuscript and, therefore, the exemption under Clause (xxii) is not available.
7. Accordingly, the first question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The second and third questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
8. Order on the civil appeals accordingly.
9. No order as to costs.
