ORDER
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : INDORE BENCH
BY THE COURT :
The CWT, Bhopal has filed this application under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957 seeking direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the question of law as extracted below:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, including in particular the fact that part of the official residence of the ex-ruler of Ratlam who is the assessee-respondent, stood let out the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption of the value of the said property in its entirety under s. 5(1)(iii) of the WT Act, 1957 ?”
2. Facts lie in a narrow compass.
The assessee-non-applicant owned the immovable property known as Ranjit Vilas Palace, Ratlam on the valuation date. In the course of assessment, the WTO found that part of the property was let out. He accordingly rejected the claim of exemption under s. 5(1)(iii) of the WT Act (for short the Act). In appeal, the CWT(A) following the decision in case of CIT vs. Bharatchandra Banjdeo (1985) 154 ITR 236 (MP) allowed the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the CWT(A), the Department filed the appeal before the Tribunal who dismissed the same. The decision was not accepted by the Department on the ground of pendency of the SLP to Appeal in the Supreme Court of India. The Department, thus, filed the application under s. 27(1) of the Act. The applications registered as RA Nos. 21 to 26/Ind/1995 dt. 29th March, 1995 in connection with separate cases for different years of assessment, were rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the order was based on appreciation of facts which gave no rise to the question of law. Thereafter, the CWT has filed this application.
3. This application was admitted for hearing on 25th July, 1995.
4. Shri D. D. Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the Department, submitted that similar reference application has been dismissed by this Court on 27th Sept., 1995 in MCC No. 494/95, CWT vs. Late Lokendra Singh, Ratlam through the Tehsildar (Court of Wards), Ratlam [reported at (1995) 129 CTR (MP) 91] He submits that this application also deserves similar fate.
5. It is noticed that the exemption was claimed under s. 5(1)(iii) of the Act. According to this provision, the wealth-tax shall not be payable by the assessee in respect of any one building in the occupation of the Ruler, being a building which immediately before commencement of the Constitution (26th Amendment) Act, 1971) was his official residence by virtue of the declaration by the Central Government under Paragraph 13 of the Merged States (Taxation Concession) Order, 1949 or Paragraph 15 of the (State Taxation Concession) Order, 1950. It is an admitted position that the building was a palace and a part of the building had been let out by the assessee. All the statutory authorities held that though a part of the building had been rented out, exemption under s. 5(1)(iii) of the Act was available in regard to the entire building. An identical question had been considered and answered against the Revenue by this Court in (1985) 154 ITR 236 (MP) (supra).
6. In view of the factual and legal position and in view of the decision rendered in Bharatchandra Banjdeos case (supra) and the order passed in MCC No. 494/95 (supra), we hold that no question of law as proposed by the Revenue arises for consideration.
7. The application is accordingly dismissed, but without any orders as to costs.