HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji, T. K. Basu
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, WEST BENGAL II - Appellant
Versus
U. C. MAHATAB - Respondent
Wealth Tax Reference 540 Of 1966
Decided On : FEBRUARY 20, 1970
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had no right on the relevant valuation dates to receive any compensation for the acquisition of his estate from the Government of West Bengal.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee had extensive zamindary properties which vested in the State of West Bengal under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. The Wealth Tax Officer assessed the right to receive compensation at Rupees 32,00,000 for each of the three years under reference. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, reduced the value of the assessee's right to receive compensation to Rs. 3,25,000 for each year.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had no right on the relevant valuation dates to receive any compensation for the acquisition of his estate from the Government of West Bengal.
Issues: Whether the right to compensation under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 constitutes an asset within the meaning of the Wealth Tax Act and specially in view of the fact where such compensation under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act has neither been determined nor paid.
Ratio Decidendi: The right to compensation under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 does not constitute an asset within the meaning of the Wealth Tax Act. The compensation is only payable to the intermediary whose right has been acquired by the Government under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act which provides by Section 14 (1) that the Compensation Officer is required to prepare the Compensation Assessment Roll within 8 years from the date of vesting specifying, inter alia, the amount of compensation payable in accordance with the provision of that Act. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had no right on the relevant valuation dates to receive any compensation for the acquisition of his estate from the Government of West Bengal.
Final Decision: The question raised in the statement of the case is answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and the question, as refrained by the court, is answered in the negative holding that what has been attempted to be taxed in-this case is not an asset within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of Wealth Tax Act.
( 1 ) THIS reference under the Wealth Tax Act raises the following question for answer : "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had no right on the relevant valuation dates to receive any compensation for the acquisition of his estate from the Government of West Bengal".
( 2 ) ALTHOUGH the question is framed in that way the real issue by refraining the question is :"whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the right to compensation under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 constitutes an asset within the meaning of the Wealth Tax Act and specially in view of the fact where such compensation under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act has neither been determined nor paid. "the facts of this case lie within a small compass. The statement of case refers to the assessments during 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1950-60. There are six re- ference applications upon which the statement of case is made raising the combined contention relating to the inclusion within the net wealth of the assessee the value of his right to receive compensation under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The admitted fact, as appeared in the statement of case, is that the assessee had extensive zamindary properties which vested in the State of West Bengal under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. The Wealth Tax Officer assessed the right to receive compensation at Rupees 32,00,000 for each of the three years under reference. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, reduced the value of the assessee's right to receive compensation to Rs. 3,25,000 for each year. It is said that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that there was a debt owed by the Government under the Estates Acquisition Act to the assessee which could be quantified under the provisions of that Act. In other words, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner took the view that the assessee had tn actionable claim against the Government the value of which was includible in the not wealth of the assessee as an asset within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the Wealth Tax Act. The valuation for Wealth Tax purposes was made on the basis of Agricultural Income Tax paid on these agricultural lands. On behalf of the assessee it was contended that on the relevant date of valuation the assessee had no right to receive any compensation from the Government and, therefore, he had no actionable claim assessable to wealth tax. 2-A. The decision of the Tribunal upholding the contention of the assessee was against the Commissioner of Wealth Tax. The Tribunal's conclusion can be briefly summarised here. In the first instance, it points out that the compensation is only Eayable to the intermediary whose right has been acquired by the Government under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act which provides by Section 14 (1) that the Compensation Officer is required to prepare the Compensation Assessment Roll within 8 years from the date of vesting specifying, inter alia, the amount of compensation payable in accordance with the provision of that Act. Therefore, the Tribunal says that when the Compensation Assessment Roll has been prepared and finally published under Section 21 of the Act the Compensation officer is required to make an offer of payment of the compensation to the intermediary. Oil this basis of reasoning the Tribunal says that as the fact is that no Compensation Roll has been prepared by the Compensation officer as yet under Section 14 (1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, there is no right in the assessee to any compensation. This is the first and paramount reason of the Tribunal for not including the alleged right of compensation in the net wealth of the assessee. The Tribunal quoted Section 23 (1) (a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, where it is provided, inter alia, "as soon as may be after the date of the final publicatio
Commr. of Income Tax, U. P. v. Kunwar Trivikram Narain Singh
Lakshmi Kant Jha v. Commr. of Wealth Tax, Bihar and Orissa
Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. Commr. of Wealth Tax
Narayana Gajapati Raju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam
Sasoon (E.D.) and Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of Income Tax
REFERRED TO : Abdul Khaleque v. Medaswar Hossain
Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa v. Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narayan Singh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.