ORDER
D. R. Singh, J.M.
1. The assessee has filed eight appeals, W.T.A. Nos. 48 to 55/(Asr)/1986. These are taken up together and disposed of together as they arise out of the single order passed by the CWT(A), Jalandhar in appeal Nos. 2 to 10 & 12/1984-85/CIT(A) dt. 31st January, 1986, the parties are same and further because most of the issues involved in these appeals are almost identical.
First, we propose to dispose of W.T.A. No. 48(Asr/1986. The assessee has taken the following effective grounds :
“1. Valuation of claims in pending litigation relating to enhancement of land acquisition compensation of agricultural lands :
(a) Pendency of litigation relating to enhancement of land acquisition compensation on the valuation date has been wrongly raised to the status of a right and also to an asset within the meaning of s. 2(e) and (2m) of the WT Act, exigible to wealth-tax. Claim for enhanced compensation being in a flux in appeals, it cannot be legally deemed to be an asset till its final determination by a competent Court. A mere actionable claim is not transferable property even under Transfer of Property Act.
(b) Various contentions and submissions canvassed at the bar and in the relevant paper book have been wrongly repelled. According to facts and circumstances of the case, amount of Rs. 13,16,869 have been wrongly assessed as value of the alleged right to receive enhanced land acquisition compensation and interest.
(c) Till the determination of the compensation by the ultimate Court, the compensation as awarded by the lower Court at the worst could have been taken as value of the actionable claim.
(d) The ultimate grant of interest under s. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is a discretionary relief and therefore, it has been wrongly valued as part of the asset under the head ‘right’ to receive enhanced compensation.
(e) At any rate, while determination value, hazards, risks and gambles of litigation have not been given proper weight and allowance.
2. Debt owed on account of land acquisition
(a) Rs. 6,71,865 have been wrongly held after enhancement notice as debt owed to the assessee on the valuation date relating to Ballabgarh land acquisition compensation. Compensation awarded by the Distt. Court by order dt. 12th February, 1969 was on the valuation date subject to the risk and hazards of an appeal by the State and therefore, matter was still in flux and it was not exigible to tax. At any rate, the risk was there. Moreover no allowance has been given for hazards of execution for recovery of said amount.
3. Air Field (in the revenue estate Faridkot Tehsil and Distt. Faridkot).
The value of land of air field have been wrongly brought to tax by serving a notice of enhancement in asst. yr. 1967-68 to 1969-70. According to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not exigible to tax on the relevant valuation dates. Notice of enhancement should not have been issued.
(b) At any rate, value assessed is exigible keeping in view quality, nature and situation of the land.
(c) Out of value of Rs. 2,05,000 as assessed by the WTO, Rs. 1,50,000 have been wrongly attributed to the value of hanger. In asst. yr. 1966-67, Revenue had assessed its value at Rs. 36,367. How can in the assessment year in question, value could jump to Rs. 1,50,000 as its structure is admittedly an old one and is virtually a junk.
(d) It has been ignored that in all the earlier assessment years, from 1967-68, Revenue had always treated this property as not taxable for not following the past practice.
4. Reviera Flats Delhi :
(a) Learned CWT(A) has erred in affirming the decision of the WTO that the property is exigible to wealth-tax in the hands of the assessee. It has been wrongly held as an ‘asset’ within the meaning of s. 2(e) and 2(m) of the Act. The plea of the appellant that no title stood conveyed and vested in him as no proper conveyance of sale has been executed and registered in his favour, have been wrongly repelled without any cogent and worthwhile reasons. It has been ignored that the property in question did not ‘belong’ to him on the relevant date within the meaning to s. 2(e) and 2(m) of the Act. It has been wrongly brought to charge in the hands of the assessee. Various submissions canvassed at the bar and in the relevant paper book have been wrongly repelled. Case law relied upon by the appellant’s side has been wrongly given no consideration whereas the case law relied upon in the impugned order is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(b) Otherwise also the value of the property have been wrongly taken at Rs. 1,50,000 on the valuation date when on 25th November, 1968, it was acquired only for Rs. 1,00,000 vide receipt No. 489 dt. 25th November, 1968 from Reviera Flats (P) Ltd., there cannot be any increase in value to the tune of Rs. 50,000 just after four months of the agreement of sale.
5. Okhla Plot Delhi.
(a) Learned CIT(A) has erred in affirming the decision of the WTO that the property is exigible to wealth-tax in the hands of the assessee. It has been wrongly held as an ‘asset’ within the meaning of ss. 2(e) and 2(m) of the Act. The plea of the appellant that no title stood conveyed and vested in him as no proper conveyance of sale has been executed and registered in his favour have been wrongly repelled within any cogent and worthwhile reasons. It has been ignored that the property in question did not ‘belong’ to him on the relevant date within the meaning of s. 2(e) and 2(m) of the Act. It has been wrongly brought to charge in his hands. Various submissions canvassed at the bar and in the relevant paper book, have been wrongly repelled. Case law relied upon by the appellant’s side have been wrongly repelled whereas the case law relied upon in the impugned order is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(b) No proper weight and consideration has been given to the fact that the site was not developed by D.D.A. till the year 1984 and even its possession was not delivered to the appellant till then in spite of many demands for the same as is clear from the evidence on the file placed in the paper book.
Ground No. 8 relating to additional wealth-tax on urban property has not been dealt with in the impugned order. Assessee’s plea was that additional wealth-tax has not been computed in accordance with provisions of paras A and B of the Schedule appended to WT Act under s. 3 of the Act.
Hence the appeal that taxable wealth may please be reduced by the following :
Rs.
(a) Value of alleged right to receive enhanced 13,16,869
compensation and interest;
(b) Debt owed on account of and acquisition judgments; 6,71,865
(c) Air Field; 1,50,000
(d) Difference in computation of additional wealth-tax
on urban property as may be determined."
6. We have heard the authorised representative of the parties, perused the records and gone through the orders of the lower authorities.
7. Ground Nos. 1(a) to 1(e) pertain to the valuation of claim with regard to the pending litigation relating to the enhancement of land acquisition compensation of agricultural lands of the assessee.
8. The grievance of the assessee is that the lower authorities have wrongly held that the right to receive compensation including enhanced compensation and interest is an asset within the meaning of s. 2(e) and 2(m) of the WT Act and hence exigible to wealth-tax. According to the assessee, the claim of enhanced compensation being in a flux in appeals, which cannot be legally deemed to be an asset till its final determination by a competent Court and as it is a mere actionable claim, and it is not transferable property even under Transfer of Property Act and so the lower authorities were not competent to tax the same under the provisions of WT Act.
9. This very issue has been decided against the assessee in other cases by this very Bench in appeal Nos. 46 & 47 (Asr)/1986, asst. yrs. 1967-68 and 1968-69, in its order dt. 3rd May, 1995. Both the parties have agreed that in view of the decision of the Tribunal, Amritsar Bench in the case of Smt. Badhurani Deepinder Kaur vs. Dy. CWT these grounds are covered against the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds have no merits and the same are dismissed.
10. Ground No. 2 pertains to the grievance of the assessee that Rs. 6,71,865 have been wrongly held by the CWT(A) as debt on the valuation date relating to the land in Ballabhgarh acquisition compensation case but since the assessee has received this enhanced compensation, so it was an asset within the meaning of s. 2(e) and 2(m) of the WT Act and exigible to wealth-tax.
11. We have already given a finding against the assessee while disposing of ground Nos. 1(a) to 1(e) of appeal following the order of the Tribunal, Amritsar Bench in Smt. Badhurani Deepinder Kaur’s case (supra).
12. However, subsequent event has taken place and has been brought to the notice of this Bench by the assessee that the matter has been finally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the assessee in Civil Appeal No. 3288 of 1979 in the case of Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur dt. 18th March, 1994, which is also reported in Revenue Law Rep (1994) 479, a photocopy of the same has also been placed on record by the assessee. According to assessee, in this case, decree has been passed against the assessee for recovery of Rs. 3,24,133.25, received as compensation, from Land Acquisition Officer in his award under s. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on April, 1968, along with interest @ 6 per cent per annum. It is, further held that this amount of Rs. 3,24,133.25 along with interest @ 6 per cent per annum, as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is to be treated as debt owed by the assessee to Sri Bihari Lal and it is to be deducted from the wealth of the assessee. Hence, we hereby direct the WTO to do the compliance of the order in recalculating the wealth of the assessee for asst. yr. 1969-70 and onwards giving benefit to the assessee arising to him out of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned above. This ground is partly allowed.
13. Ground No. 3 pertains to the Air field in the Revenue Estate, Faridkot. This ground has been set aside by the Tribunal, Amritsar Bench in Smt. Badhurani Deepinder Kaur’s case (supra) for the asst. yrs. 1967-68 and 1968-69 in its order dt. 3rd May, 1995 and this issue has been restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication in terms of the order of the Bench. In the light of the above direction, in the order as mentioned above, the present issue is also restored to the file of the WTO for re-adjudication in terms of the order of the Bench passed in the case of Smt. Badhurani Deepinder Kaur (supra).
14. Now we take up ground No. 4(a). This ground pertains to flat in Reviera Apartments, Delhi wherein according to the assessee, the lower authorities have wrongly held that the property in question was an asset on the relevant date within the meaning of s. 2(e) and 2(m) of the WT Act though on that date, no title stood conveyed and vested in him because no proper conveyance of sale has been executed in favour of the assessee.
15. In brief, the relevant and material facts, not disputed by the assessee before the CWT(A) and as emerging from the order of the CWT (A) regarding the flat in question, i.e. 32, Reviera Apartments, Mall Road, New Delhi, are as under :
16. On 25th November, 1968, the assessee paid Rs. 1 lakh which has been referred to as advance by the assessee, to Reviera Apartments (P) Ltd., Connaught Place, New Delhi. Description and plan of the flat is given in the paper book and is annexure ‘C’ to the paper book. The payment of Rs. 1 lakh was made by cheque drawn by the assessee on his account with National & Grindlays Bank Ltd., New Delhi. It has been stated that no agreement has been signed by the assessee with Reviera Apartments (P) Ltd., New Delhi. Only three documents relating to this transaction available with the assessee are a letter dt. 5th November, 1968, written by the assessee to M/s. Reviera Apartments (P) Ltd., receipt dt. 25th November, 1968, for the payment made, and a letter dt. 26th November, 1971, from Reviera Apartments (P) Ltd., New Delhi.
17. The letter dt. 5th November, 1968 is regarding the purchase of the flat for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (rupees one lakh only), written by the assessee to the Reviera Apartments and the relevant extract of the letter is reproduced below :
“Dear Sir,
As settled please find cheque No. 921632 dt. 25th November, 1968, for Rs. 1 lakh drawn on the National & Grindlays Bank Ltd., Connaught Place, New Delhi attached herewith, towards the total sale price of the above noted premises 32(S) and deliver possession thereof.”
18. The second document is receipt dt. 25th November, 1968, issued by the Reviera Apartments (P) Ltd., New Delhi and it reads as under :
“No. 459 dt. 25th November, 1968.
Received from Colonel His Highness Raja Sir Harinder Singh KCSI Brar Bans Bahadur of Faridkot (Family Housing Trust) the sum of rupees one lakh only on account of price of deluxe flat for the acquisition of Residential Apartment No. 32(S) of 7th Floor on ownership basis as per terms of agreement dated …….. cheque No. 921632 of dt. on National & Grindlays Bank Ltd., Cannaught Place, New Delhi.
Rs. 1,00,000
Signed
Stamped.”
19. The letter dt. 26th November, 1971, is written by Reviera Apartments (P) Ltd., New Delhi, which is reproduced as below :
“As desired by you, we hereby confirm that we have received Rs. 1,00,000 (rupees one lakh only) from Colonel His Highness Raja Sir Harinder Singh Barar Bans Bahadur K.C.S.I. ruler of former Faridkot State (Family Housing Trust) vide cheque No. 921632 drawn on the National & Grindlays Bank Ltd., New Delhi towards sale price of Apartment No. 32 (South) on the 7th Floor, of ‘Reviera’ situate on the Mall, Delhi. But so far no agreement has been executed between us. The possession of the apartment had been handed over to Rajkumari Maheepinder Kaur Sahiba, daughter of His Highness Faridkot on 4th November, 1969.”
20. Now the contention of the assessee’s counsel before us is that on the valuation dates the property did not belong to the assessee within the meaning of s. 2(e) and 2(m) of the WT Act as no title stood conveyed in favour of the assessee because no conveyance of sale has been executed and registered in his favour. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan vs. CWT (1996) 162 ITR 888 (SC). On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC). Now, according to the Departmental Representative while deciding the above case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also taken into consideration the case of Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan (supra) and also the same is relied upon by the assessee’s counsel wherein it is held as under :
“We are conscious of the settled position that under the common law, “owner” means a person who has got valid title legally conveyed to him after complying with the requirements of the law such as the Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act, etc. But, in the context of s. 22 of the IT Act, having regard to the ground realities and further having regard to the object of IT Act, namely, “to tax the income,” we are of the view, “owner” is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right.”
21. The learned Departmental Representative, however, contended that on perusal of these documents, it is evident that the assessee has paid total sale price of the flat and after receiving the cost the possession of the flat was delivered to him by Reviera Apartments (P) Ltd. New Delhi. The learned Departmental Representative further contended that it is, therefore, evident from this document that according to the assessee, he had paid Rs. 1,00,000 to the Reviera Apartments as the total settled sale price of the flat and the owner Reviera Apartments confirmed having received the total sale price of such apartment by them. The learned Departmental Representative further contended that it means that Reviera Apartments had no right to abrogate the transaction even if no conveyance deed has been executed and duly registered by them in favour of the assessee. Hence, according to the Departmental Representative, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court CIT vs. Podar Cement (P) Ltd.’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of this case because the assessee became the owner of the flat when he paid its total cost of Rs. 1,00,000 to Reviera Apartments (P) Ltd. New Delhi and in turn Reviera Apartments had also accepted the same as total price of the flat on 25th November, 1968. The Departmental Representative further argued that in this manner the lower authorities were fully justified in holding that for the asst. yr. 1969-70 onwards this property of the assessee i.e. flat in Reviera Apartments was exigible to wealth in the hands of the assessee because it was an asset within the meaning of s. 2(e) and 2(m) of the WT Act. Lastly, he contended that the lower authorities have rightly charged the property to tax in the hands of the assessee.
22. Whereas, on the other hand, according to the assessee, he admitted to having deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 vide receipt dt. 25th November, 1968 with Reviera Apartments (P) Ltd., New Delhi for the purchase of flat on 25th November, 1968. He further admitted in its letter dt. 25th November, 1968, acknowledging the receipt of cheque and also confirmed having delivered the possession of the same to the assessee. However, according to the assessee, since no formal agreement has been executed between the assessee and Reviera Apartments, so, according to him as per s. 2(m) of the WT Act, the property did not belong to the assessee on the valuation dates as no sale deed has been executed as enjoined in s. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, it is not an assessable in the hands of the assessee but it is only assessable in the hands of Reviera Apartments (P) Ltd., New Delhi. The assessee has strongly relied on in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan’s case (supra). In the above noted case, the assessee Nizam of Hyderabad had received full consideration for certain movable property from the purchaser and had delivered possession to the vendee, but had not yet executed registered sale deed in their favour. The Revenue assessed the property in the hands of Nizam of Hyderabad and the matter was settled by the Supreme Court in the above judgment laying down as under :
“The liability to wealth-tax arises because of the ‘belonging’ of the assessee and not otherwise. Mere possession or joint possession unaccompanied by the right to be in possession or ownership property would therefore not bring the property within the definition of net wealth for it would not have been an asset ‘belonging’ to the assessee.”
23. At p. 894, the Supreme Court observed as under :
“In the instant appeal, however, we are concerned with ‘belonging’ and not with the expression ‘owner’ …… the liability to wealth-tax arises because of the ‘belonging’ of the asset and not otherwise. Mere possession or joint possession unaccompanied by the right to be in possession or ownership property would, therefore, not bring the property within the definition of net wealth for it, would not then be an asset ‘belonging’ to the assessee …….. It has also to be borne in mind that unlike provision of the IT Act s. 2(m) of the WT Act used the expression “belonging” to and as such indicate something over which a person dominion and lawful dominion.”
24. At p. 896, the Supreme Court held as under :
“Therefore, the fact that the legislature has deliberately not used the expression ‘asset’ owned by the assessee but asset ‘belonging’ to the assessee, in our opinion, is an aspect which has to be borne in mind.”
25. It has been contended by the assessee that at p. 898. The Supreme Court has distinguished the Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment in the case of Smt. Kala Rani vs. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 321 (P&H) on the ground that High Court was considering meaning of expression ‘owner’ under s. 22 of the IT Act and not the ‘asset’ belonging to the assessee’ under s. 2(m) of the WT Act. The perusal of the order of CIT(A) at pp. 42 and 43 shown that it has imposed wealth-tax upon the assessee by following Smt. Kala Rani’s case (supra) as is clear from the CIT(A)’s order at pp. 42 and 43. Now, according to the assessee, the Supreme Court judgment referred above fully covers and supports the case of the assessee.
26. We have already mentioned that the Revenue has heavily relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Podar Cement (P) Ltd. (supra) but we find that the said judgment is under the IT Act relating to interpretation of the word ‘owner’ of the house as defined under s. 22 of the IT Act, 1961 and s. 9 of the old Act, 1922, and the judgment in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan’s case (supra) was referred to in that judgment at p. 646 at side note ‘E’ and Supreme Court has made the following comments :
“So far as view taken by the apex Court in case of Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan vs. CWT (1986) 162 ITR 888 (SC) is concerned, that was in the context of wealth-tax where the language of the section was different.”
27. Thus, the latest judgment of the Supreme Court has not dissented or overruled previous judgment of the apex Court in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan’s case (supra). Whereas we find that in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan’s case (supra) the judgment has been pronounced by the Supreme Court in relation to wealth-tax in accordance with the interpretation of the relevant provisions of WT Act.
28. To sum up, from the above citation, we find that under s. 3 of the WT Act, the charge of wealth-tax is on the net wealth of the assessee on the relevant valuation date. The ‘net wealth’ is defined under s. 2(m) of the Act. The relevant portion of the s. 2(m) is reproduced as below :
“(m) “net wealth” means the amount by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act of all the assets, wherever located, belonging to the assessee on the valuation date, including assets required to be included in his net wealth as on that date under this Act, is in excess of the aggregate value of all the debts owned by the assessee (on the valuation date which have been incurred in relation to said assets;)”
29. In Podar Cement (P) Ltd.’s case (supra), the Supreme Court interpreted the word “owner” of the house as defined under s. 22 of the IT Act, 1961 and s. 9 of the old Act, 1922 whereas in the instant case, we are concerned with the expression “belonging” to the assessee under s. 2(m) of the WT Act and not with the expression “owner” used under ss. 22 to 24 of the IT Act, 1961. In other words, liability to pay wealth-tax arises because of the ‘belonging’ of the assessee and not otherwise. The material question in the light of the above cited cases by the parties required to be decided by us is did Reviera Apartments Flat, in respect of which no registered sale deed has been executed in favour of the assessee but consideration for sale for which had been received from the assessee by the Reviera Apartments and the possession of the same had also been handed over to the assessee, is “belonging” to the assessee for the purposes of inclusion in the net wealth. The Supreme Court in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan’s case (supra), cited by the assessee and discussed in detail by us has clearly answered this question for the purposes of assessment with regard to the wealth-tax cases on the basis of which it could be inferred that this Reviera Apartments Flat did not belong to the assessee within the meaning of s. 2(m) of the WT Act. Hence, we conclude that the Reviera Apartments Flat in question did not belong to the assessee within the meaning of s. 2(m) of the WT Act. Now, since, we have held that this Reviera Apartments Flat did not belong to the assessee, so the liability of the assessee also did not arise to pay any wealth-tax in respect of this flat and accordingly, the lower authorities are not justified in levying any wealth-tax in respect of this flat in Reviera Apartments in the hands of the assessee for the relevant assessment year.
30. As a result of our findings above, ground No. 4(a) of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. As a consequent of this finding, ground No. 4(b) taken by the assessee in respect of valuation of flat for the asst. yr. 1969-70 it is held that the valuation arrived at by the CWT(A) at Rs. 1,50,000 for the asst. yr. 1969-70 is also liable to be set aside because we have already held that the flat cannot be assessed to wealth-tax in the hands of the assessee. In the result, this valuation of the flat assessed for the purposes of wealth-tax by the CWT(A) at Rs. 1,50,000 is thus set aside and ground Nos. 4(a) and 4(b) of the appeal of the assessee are thus decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the order of the CWT(A) is set aside in respect of the valuation of Reviera Apartments Flat.
31. Ground No. 5. In this ground, the contention of the assessee is that he is not the owner of the Okhla Plot, Delhi since no conveyance has been executed in favour of the assessee and the plot had not been handed over to him by the DDA till August, 1984. So this plot in Okhla Industrial Area did not belong to the assessee within the meaning of s. 2(m) of the WT Act and so this plot cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee under s. 2(m) of the WT Act. However, the CWT(A), on the basis of the order passed in respect of the flat of the assessee in Reviera Apartments came to the conclusion that this plot also belonged to the assessee within the meaning of s. 2(m) of the WT Act and, hence, the CWT(A) assessed its valuation on the different valuation dates for the purposes of wealth-tax and detailed the same at pp. 48 and 49 of his order from the asst. yrs. 1969-70 to 1980-81 (asst. yr. 1969-70 in question).
32. In view of our above discussion and findings on ground Nos. 4(a) and 4(b), as above, the same finding is also given by us here on the same basis, as discussed while disposing of grounds in respect of Reviera Apartments Flat, in respect of plot in Okhla Industrial Area of the assessee and we hold that it did not belong to the assessee within the meaning of s. 2(m) of the WT Act. Hence, this industrial plot situated in Okhla Industrial Area cannot be assessed to wealth-tax in the hands of the assessee. This ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b) of the appeal of the assessee are also decided in favour of the assessee.
33. The assessee has not mentioned any ground serial numbered as 6 and 7 after serial No. 5 in his appeal and hence it is presumed that the assessee has not mentioned ground Nos. 6 and 7 in his appeal and so now we are to simply deal with the next ground of appeal which is sl. No. 8.
34. The first part of this ground relates to additional wealth-tax on urban property and the same has not been pressed by the assessee’s counsel during the course of arguments. Whereas the second part of this ground of appeal is not dealt by us separately because the grievance of the assessee taken in this second part is, in fact, in the form of prayer of the assessee, which has been dealt by us by disposing of other grounds of appeal of the assessee as above and since these prayers of the assessee mentioned in ground No. 8 have also been discussed and disposed of at appropriate places and also taken care of while disposing of the other grounds of appeal.
35. In the result, the appeal of the assessee, WTA No. 48 (Asr)/1986, for the asst. yr. 1969-70, is partly allowed and the order of the lower authorities also stands modified accordingly.
36. Ground No. 1 in WTA Nos. 49 to 55 (Asr)/1986 pertain to the valuation of claims in pending litigation relating to the enhancement of land acquisition compensation of agricultural lands. This ground has already been decided by us as above in WTA No. 48(ASR)/1986 against the assessee and accordingly, this ground is dismissed in all the appeals.
37. Ground No. 2 in WTA Nos. 49, 50 (Asr)/1986 and ground No. 3 in WTA Nos. 51 to 55 (Asr)/1986 pertain to the Reviera Flat, New Delhi. We have already decided this ground in WTA No. 48 (Asr)/1986 in favour of the assessee and accordingly the abovestated grounds in WTA Nos. 49 to 55(Asr)/1986 are also decided in favour of the assessee and the order of the CWT(A) is set aside in respect of the valuation of Reviera Apartments Flat, New Delhi.
38. Ground No. 3 in WTA Nos. 49 & 50 (Asr)/1986 and ground No. 4 in WTA Nos. 51 to 55 (Asr)/1986 pertain to the Okhla Industrial Area plot and the same has been decided as per ground No. 5 in WTA No. 48 (Asr)/1986 as above in favour of the assessee. All these grounds now also stands decided as per order based in WTA No. 48(Asr)/1986.
39. Ground No. 4 in WTA Nos. 49 & 50 (Asr)/1986 and ground No. 5 in WTA Nos. 51 to 55 (Asr)/1986 pertain to value of trees, which is stated as under :
“4. Valuation of trees :
Learned CWT(A) has erred in affirming the decision of the WTO in valuing the trees at Rs. 20,00,000 separately divorced from the land in which these are rooted, embedded, nourished, sustained. It has been ignored that trees till they reached the timber stage are part and parcel of the land in the eye of law as is clear from the definition of immovable property given in s. 2(26) of the General Clauses Act, and s. 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. Till trees reach timber state, these are always deemed part of the land.
(b) As regards, trees standing in Bir Chahal, Bir Ghugiana and Bir Sikhanwala, from the evidence it is proved that these are disease-ridden and have stunted growth due to waterlogging and are sparsely populated of thin girth and have not yet reached timber stage. These have been ravaged by field firing operations of the Indian Army carried out in Bir Ghugiana. The observations of S. Biram Singh approved valuer in valuation report of land about trees has not been kept in view. Similarly as regards orchards these have reached at the end of their fruit bearing age and yielded little fruits as is clear from the evidence on the file and valuation report of S. Biram Singh approved valuer.
(c) At any rate, valuation assessed at Rs. 20,00,000 of the trees have been wrongly affirmed in the impugned order keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The value is highly excessive and exhorbitants and fanciful, and is liable to be excluded from the taxable wealth.”
40. We have gone through the orders of the lower authorities and on going through the orders of the AO, wherein he estimated the market value of the trees of agricultural lands as well as trees in orchards or plantation of the assessee. The AO has asked the assessee to furnish necessary information regarding the particulars of trees and plantation on the agricultural land, as well as, garden orchards on these agricultural lands but he has failed to furnish any information for ascertainment of its fair market value. In the light of these documents, we find that the AO while estimating the value of these trees at Rs. 20,00,000 as written in his order, “I would, in the absence of necessary details from the assessee, estimate the market value of the standing trees on agricultural lands as well as in orchards, gardens or forest of the assessee at Rs. 20,00,000.” This order clearly shows that the AO without collecting any material and without any reasonable basis and proper analysis has estimated the value of the trees at Rs. 20,00,000 which is unfair and unjudicious. In view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where this issue requires to be set aside and referred back to the AO with the direction to give an exhaustive reasoning and the basis for estimating the market value of trees at Rs. 20,00,000 so the same can be properly appreciated by the appellate authority. With these directions, we set aside this issue and restore the issue to the file of the AO for compliance of our above directions.
41. Ground No. 5(iii) of WTA No. 49 (Asr)/1986 and ground No. 6(iii) in WTA No. 50 (Asr)/1986, ground No. 9(B) in WTA No. 51 (Asr)/1986, ground No. 8 in WTA Nos. 53 to 55 (Asr)/1986 pertain to the Air Field, Faridkot. This ground has been dealt with and decided by ground No. 3 in WTA No. 48(Asr)/1986 as above and the issue has been restored to the file of the WTO for re-adjudication in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, in Smt. Badhurani Deepindar Kaur’s case (supra) in respect of asst. yrs. 1967-68 and 1968-69 dt. 3rd May, 1995. These grounds also stands decided accordingly.
Ground No. 5 of WTA No. 49 (Asr)/1986, ground No. 6(i) and (ii) of WTA No. 50 (Asr)/1986, pertain to the valuation of all the agricultural lands were not pressed by the assessee in its application dt. 8th November, 1997 moved before the Bench. Hence, these grounds pertaining to the valuation of agricultural lands are dismissed as not pressed.
42. Ground No. 6 in WTA No. 49 (Asr)/1986, ground No. 8 in WTA No. 50 (Asr)/1986, ground No. 10 in WTA No. 51 (Asr)/1986, ground No. 9 in WTA Nos. 52 to 54 (Asr)/1986 pertaining to the additional wealth-tax on urban property were not pressed by the assessee’s counsel during the course of arguments and hence these are disposed of as not pressed.
43. Ground No. 5 in WTA No. 50 (Asr)/1986, ground Nos. 7 and 8 in WTA No. 51 (Asr)/1986, ground No. 7 in WTA Nos. 52, 53, 54 and 55 (Asr)/1986 pertaining to the valuation of land of permissible area of separate unit of adult son under Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 and Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 were not pressed by the assessee’s counsel on 10th November, 1997. Hence, these grounds are, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
44. Ground No. 7 in WTA No. 50(Asr)/1986 and ground No. 6 in WTA Nos. 51 to 55 (Asr)/1986 taken by the assessee in his appeals are reproduced as below :
“1. Hotel site Chandigarh :
Learned CWT(A) has erred in affirming the decision of the WTO that the property is exigible to wealth-tax in the hands of the assessee. It has been wrongly held as an ‘asset’ within the meaning of s. 2(e) and 2(m) of the Act. The plea of the appellant that no title stood conveyed and vested in him as no proper conveyance of sale has been executed and registered in his favour have been wrongly repelled without any cogent and worthwhile reasons. It has been wrongly brought to charge in the hands of the assessee. Various submissions convassed at the bar and in the relevant paper book, have been wrongly repelled.
(b) It has been ignored that the plot in question was resumed on various valuation dates and assessee had no saleable interest in the same. It has been wrongly held that ownership rights of the assessee were not extinguished by resumption. It has been ignored that even first instalment was not paid on valuation date of 12th April, 1971, and therefore, assessee had no marketable title and the plot cannot be said to ‘belong’ to the assessee on the valuation date.
(c) No allowance is given for 782 sq. yds. of the plot taken over by the Estate Office for construction of a road.”
45. While disposing of ground with respect to the valuation of flat in Reviera Apartments, New Delhi in WTA No. 48 (Asr)/1986, we have, after proper discussion and on detailed reasoning, held that the Reviera Apartments Flat, New Delhi, which does not belong to the assessee within the meaning of s. 2(m) of WT Act and hence the liability of the assessee to pay wealth-tax on this flat also does not arise. On the basis of this finding, we have allowed the ground of appeal pertaining to the Reviera Apartments Flat, New Delhi in favour of the assessee holding that no tax can be levied in respect of this flat in the hands of the assessee under s. 2(m) of the WT Act. On the same reasoning we also hold with respect to hotel site at Chandigarh that this property was also not exigible to wealth-tax in the hands of the assessee. These grounds are also decided in favour of the assessee and the orders of the lower authorities in levying tax in respect of this hotel site at Chandigarh in the hands of the assessee are also set aside.
46. Ground No. 2 in WTA Nos. 51 to 55 (Asr)/1986 pertaining to debt owed has already been decided by us in WTA No. 48 (Asr)/1986 for the asst. yr. 1969-70 and in the similar manner, this ground also stands decided as per the order passed in WTA No. 48 (Asr)/1986 on ground No. 2.
47. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are disposed of accordingly.