JUDGMENT
By The Court
1. The petitioner is seeking reference of the following question :
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was correct in law in confirming the finding of AAC the assessed was liable to be assessed only in respect of 1/19th share in the land ?
2. Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that finality of decision of Appellate Authority in case of other co-owners for different assessment year was a bar in considering the case of the department on merits in case of the assessed ?
3. Whether the ITAT was correct in law in applying principles of res judicata to the proceedings under the WT Act and thereby not considering it necessary to go into the question of genuineness of the alleged firm M/s. Gupta Associates ?
2. There was a land situate in Bombay which was owned, initially, by four persons, manely, P. P. Gupta, Anil Gupta, Veena Gupta and Usha Gupta. The case of the assessed is that a partnership was formed on 18th November, 1974 with effect from 1st November, 1974. In this partnership some partners were admitted to the benefits of the partners and six more partners were also inducted. Thereafter some disputes are stated to have arisen amongst the parties. The disputes were referred to arbitration and an arbitration award was made whereby it was held that each of the partners and the persons admitted to the benefits of the partnership were entitled to 1/19th share each in the land. This award was made the rule of the Court by judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 5th April, 1978.
3. It appears that proceedings were already started under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Ceiling Act. The contention raised by the owners were that they were entitled to 500 sq. mtrs. each as there were 19 owners. The authority under the said Act accepted this contention and after releasing the land in their favor the surplus land got vested in the competent authority under the said Act.
4. With regard to the assessment under the WT Act the question has arisen at different points of time and has been dealt with differently. It, however, appears that in respect of P. P. Gupta in respect of the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79 the CWT held that he has 1/19th share. No appeal was filed by the Department. For the asst yr. 1979-80 it is the WTO himself who came to the same conclusion and this has become final. The assessment for the asst. yr. 1975-76 is, however, subject to application under s. 27(3) before us.
5. As regards Veena Gupta is concerned in respect of asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79 the appellate authority held that she was the owner of 1/19th share. For the asst. yr. 1979-80 it is the WTO held her to be 1/19th owner. The order of the WTO for the asst. yr. 1979-80, of course, has become final. Similarly in the case of Veena Gupta no appeal was filed by the Revenue against the said decisions of the AAC.
6. In the case of Anil Gupta for the asst. yr. 1979-80 the WTO himself assessed his share 1/19th. This has become final.
7. In respect of Usha Gupta for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79 the AAC held her share to be 1/19th and no appeal was filed against that. In respect of year 1978-79 the WTO held her share 1/19th and this has become final.
8. From the aforesaid it is clear that in regard to each one of the four original owners at least in respect of 1979-80, and in respect of 3 of the owners for the year 1977-78 and 1978-79 the final result is that their share is only 1/19th as no further action has been taken by the Department.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a raid conducted which revealed certain documents and as a result thereof the correct facts came to the Department’s knowledge. We are informed that the raid was conducted on 21st December, 1983. We, however, notice that in the case of P. P. Gupta the WTO for the year 1979-80 has taken his share to be 1/19th vide order dated 19th March, 1984. In the case of Veena Gupta the AAC passed the order on 18th March, 1986, after the raid and the WTO also for 1979-80 made the assessment on 14th March, 1984, also after the raid and the WTO also for 1979-80 made the assessment on 14th March, 1984, also after the raid. Similar is the position with regard to Usha Gupta. In the case of Anil Gupta the WTO computed his wealth by taking the share to be 1/19th vide order dated 14th March, 1984. It is clear, therefore, that in respect of each of the four original owners even after the raid their share has been taken to be 1/19th. In view of the fact that the matter stands concluded at least in respect of some of the years to the effect that the share of the original owner was only 1/19th the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that no question should be referred and in out opinion they rightly dismissed the applications under s. 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. In our opinion, no question of law arises. Therefore, this petition is dismissed.
WTC 174/89
1. The petitioner is seeking reference of the following questions :
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was correct in law in confirming the finding of AAC that the assessed was liable to be assessed only in respect of 1/19th share in the land ?
2. Whether ITAT was correct in law in holding that finality of decision of Appellate Authority in case of other co-owners for different assessment year was a bar in considering the case of the department on merits in case of the assessed ?
3. Whether the ITAT was correct in law in applying principles of res judicata to the proceedings under the WT Act and thereby not considering it necessary to go into the question of genuineness of the alleged firm M/s. Gupta Associates ?
2. There was a land situate in Bombay which was owned, initially, by four persons, namely, P. P. Gupta, Anil Gupta, Veena Gupta and Usha Gupta. The case of the assessed is that a partnership was formed on 18th November, 1974 with effect from 1st November, 1974. In this partnership some partners were admitted to the benefits of the partners and six more partners were also inducted. Thereafter some disputes are stated to have arisen amongst the parties. The disputes were referred to arbitration and an arbitration award was made whereby it was held that each of the partners and the persons admitted to the benefits of the partnership were entitled to 1/19th share each in the land. This award was made the rule of the Court by judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 5th April, 1978.
3. It appears that proceedings were already started under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Ceiling Act. The contention raised by the owners were that they were entitled to 500 sq. mtrs. each as there were 19 owners. The authority under the said Act accepted this contention and after releasing the land in their favor the surplus land got vested in the competent authority under the said Act.
4. With regard to the assessment under the WT Act the question has arisen at different points of time and has been dealt with differently. It, however, appears that in respect of P. P. Gupta in respect of the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79 the CWT held that he has 1/19th share. No appeal was filed by the Department. For the asst. yr. 1979-80 it is the WTO himself Who came to the same conclusion and this has become final. The assessment for the asst. yr. 1975-76 is, however, subject to application under s. 27(3) before us.
5. As regards Veena Gupta is concerned in respect of asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79 the appellate authority held that she was the owner of 1/19th share. For the asst. yr. 1979-80 it asst. yr. 1979-80, of course, has become final. Similarly in the case of Veena Gupta no appeal was filed by the Revenue against the said decisions of the AAC.
6. In the case of Anil Gupta for the asst. yr. 1979-80 the WTO himself assessed his share 1/19th. This has become final.
7. In respect of Usha Gupta for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79 the AAC held her share to be 1/19th and appeal was filed against that. In respect of year 1978-79 the WTO held her share 1/19th and this has become final.
8. From the aforesaid it is clear that in regard to each one of the four original owners at least in respect of 1979-80, and in respect of 3 of the owners for the year 1977-78 and 1978-79 the 1978-79 the final result is that their share is only 1/19th as on further action has been taken by the Department.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that was a raid conducted on 21st December, 1983. We, however, notice that in the case of P. P. Gupta the WTO for the year 1979-80 has taken his share to be 1/19th vide order dated 19th March, 1984. In the case of Veena Gupta the AAC passed the order on 18th March, 1986, after the raid and the WTO also for 1979-80 made the assessment on 14th March, 1984, also after the raid. Similar is the position with regard to Usha Gupta. In the case of Anil Gupta the WTO computed his wealth by taking the share to be 1/19th vide order dated 14th March, 1984. It is clear, therefore, that in respect of each of the four original owners even after the raid their share has been taken to be 1/19th. In view of the fact that the matter stands concluded at least in respect of some of the years to the effect that the share of the original owner was only 1/19th and there is nothing to show that it has become final to the effect that the share of the owners is 1/4th, in our opinion, because of the finality which has been attached to the order holding the share to be 1/19th the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that no question should be referred and in our opinion they rightly dismissed the applications under s. 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. In our opinion, on question of law arises. Therefore, this petition is dismissed.