Smt. Indrakshi Devi, Bengaluru V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), , Bengaluru

CO 130/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4471 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H ANIL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: NEERA MALHOTRA BENGALURU
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Competent authority; Tax effect; Set aside
• Section: 13; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER W T A NO S . 26 TO 28/B A NG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 1999 - 2000 TO 2001 - 02 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE. VS. SMT. INDIRAKSHI DEVI, NO.241, 15 TH MAIN ROAD, RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560 080. P AN: AADPI 7181H APPELLANT RESPONDENT CO NOS.130 TO 132/BANG/2018 (IN WTA NOS.26 TO 28/BANG/2017) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1999-2000 TO 2001-02 & WTA NOS. 4 TO 7/BANG/2020 2002 - 03 TO 2005 - 06 SMT. INDIRAKSHI DEVI, NO.241, 15 TH MAIN ROAD, RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560 080. PAN: AADPI 7181H VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE. & THE WEALTH TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(1), BANGALORE. CROSS OBJECTOR & APPELLANT RESPONDENT R EVENUE BY : MS. NEERA MALHOTRA, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BENGALURU. RESPO NDENT BY : SHRI H. AN IL KUMAR, CA DATE OF HEARING : 16 . 0 9 .2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 .0 9 .202 1 WTA NOS.26 TO 28/BANG/17 & WTA NOS. 4 TO 7/BANG/20 & CO NOS.130 TO 132/BANG/18 PAGE 2 OF 17 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE CWT(APPEALS). THE REV ENUE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE IN CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999- 2000 TO 2001-02. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 -03 TO 2005-06. COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS, WH ICH WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT P RESSED ITS CROSS OBJECTIONS AND THEY ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. WTA NOS.26 TO 28/BANG/2007 (AYS 1999-2000 TO 2001-0 2) 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR AYS 1999-2000 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING RENTAL INCOME FILED HER RETURNS O F WEALTH ON 24.2.2000 DECLARING TOTAL WEALTH OF RS.4,35,262. THE AO REOP ENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 17 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN REITERATING THE ORIGINAL RETURN. THE ASSESSEE FILED HER OBJECTIONS TO THE REASSESSMENT STATING THAT THE ASSET IS NO MORE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF BANGALORE PALACE AC QUISITION ACT, 1996 WHICH IS CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE SUPRE ME COURT AND BY VIRTUE OF SUPREME COURTS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS ON LY AN OCCUPIER OF THE LAND AND NOT THE OWNER. FURTHER THE 28 ACRES OF L AND IN BANGALORE PALACE COMPOUND WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF URB AN LAND SINCE IT CAME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF KARNATAKA PARKS, PLAYFIELDS AN D OPEN SPACES (PRESERVATION AND REGULATION) ACT OF 1985. THE AO, HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF WTA NOS.26 TO 28/BANG/17 & WTA NOS. 4 TO 7/BANG/20 & CO NOS.130 TO 132/BANG/18 PAGE 3 OF 17 SECTION 2(EA) OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT TREATED THE ASS ESSEE AS OWNER OF THE ASSET AND MADE ASSESSMENT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT THE CWT(A ) VIDE ORDER DATED 28.1.2013 HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD BROUGHT TO HER NOTICE THAT THE ACT ACQUIRING THE BANGALORE PALACE AND ITS APPURTEN ANT LANDS RESTRICTED HER FROM PUTTING UP ANY CONSTRUCTIONS WHICH WOULD NOT B LEND WITH THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BANGALORE PALACE. THE RESTRICT IONS UNDER THE KARNATAKA PARKS, PLAY FIELD, OPEN SPACES REGULATION ACT OF 19 85 WERE ALSO APPLICABLE ON HER. ACCORDINGLY, PERMANENT CONSTRUCTIONS IN TH E FORM OF ORDINARY BUILDINGS WERE RULED OUT AND TILE APPELLANT HAD ONL Y PUT UP SOME TEMPORARY STRUCTURE TO MAKE USE OF THE LAND AS ITS OCCUPIER. FROM THESE FACTS IT IS CLEAR THAT ALTHOUGH ON THE DATE OF VALUATION, THE L AND OF 28 ACRES STOOD IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT WITH A DISPUTE PENDING BE FORE THE SUPREME COURT, SHE ESSENTIALLY HAD NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO CONSTRUC T ANY STRUCTURE AS PER HER NEEDS ON THIS PROPERTY. SHE COULD NOT LEASE IT OUT OR MORTGAGE IT FOR AVAILING LOANS NOR COULD SHE SELL OR OTHERWISE TRAN SFER THE PROPERTY THESE ARE CRITICAL RESTRICTION WHICH INDICATES THAT THE B UNDLE OF RIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH OWNERSHIP DOES NOT VEST WITH THE APPELLANT. TH E 28 ACRES OF LAND THEREFORE, CLEARLY FALL WITHIN THE EXEMPTION CLAUSE OF SECTION 2(EA)(B) IN THE YEARS OF VALUATION. HENCE NO WEALTH TAX ON THIS LAN D IS CHARGEABLE AND THE ADDITIONS MADE ON THIS COUNT ARE DIRECTED TO BE DEL ETED. 5. THE CIT(APPEALS) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL MA TRIX AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE BANGALOR E TRIBUNAL ON A SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SMT. KAMAKSHI DEVI IN WTA NOS. 6 TO 8/BANG/2013 DATED 31 ST JULY, 2014, ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. A GAINST THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. WTA NOS.26 TO 28/BANG/17 & WTA NOS. 4 TO 7/BANG/20 & CO NOS.130 TO 132/BANG/18 PAGE 4 OF 17 6. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE COMMON FOR THESE YEARS AND THE GROUNDS IN WTA 26/BANG/2017 ARE REPRODUCED BELO W:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IS OPPOSED TO LAW-AN D THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING ASSESSEE'S APPEAL WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT 28 ACRE OF URBAN LAND IS IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE? 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF LATE SHRI S.N. WADIYAR WHICH WAS THE MAIN APPEAL ALONG W ITH OTHER APPEALS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL, WHEREIN TH E HON'BLE COURT HELD THAT VALUE OF EXCESS LAND WHICH IS SUBJECT MAT TER OF CEILING ACT WOULD BE RS. 2 LAKHS, TO THAT MARKET VALUE OF THE R EMAINING LAND WILL HAVE TO BE ADDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARRIVING AT THE VALUATION FOR PAYMENT OF WEALTH TAX. 4. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS MAY BE REVERSED AND TH AT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. I 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER, TO AME ND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARIN G OF THE APPEAL. 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSES SEE MADE PRIMARY OBJECTIONS WITH REGARD TO TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN TH ESE APPEALS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE AO IS N OT BACKED BY A VALUATION BY THE VALUATION OFFICER AND IF HE CONSID ERS THE VALUATION AS WTA NOS.26 TO 28/BANG/17 & WTA NOS. 4 TO 7/BANG/20 & CO NOS.130 TO 132/BANG/18 PAGE 5 OF 17 REQUIRED BY SECTION 16A OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 READ WITH RULE 3B, THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE MUCH LESS AND THE TAX EFFECT WILL BE LESS THAN RS.50 LAKHS AND CBDT CIRCULAR NO.5/2019 DATED 5.2.2019 IS VERY MUCH APPLICABLE AND THE APPEALS BE DISMISSED BY APP LYING THE ABOVE CIRCULAR. 8. IN OUR OPINION, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR IS TO TALLY MISCONCEIVED. WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE TAX EFFECT BY THE AO ON THE DISPUTED ISSUES, NOT ON THE PROPOSED VALUATION TO BE DONE IN TERMS OF SECTI ON 16A OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT. AS SUCH, WE DISMISS THIS PRIMARY OBJECTION. 9. COMING TO THE MERITS, THE ISSUE IN ALL THE GROUN DS RAISED BY THE REVENUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS TRIBU NAL IN WTA NO.5 & 6/BANG/2012 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AYS 1986-87 & 1987-88 AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 28.8.2019 DISPOSED SI MILAR ISSUE AS FOLLOWS:- 6. AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF LD.CIT (A), IN 1ST ROUND OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, REVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL BE FORE THIS TRIBUNAL, WHICH STOOD DISMISSED. UPON REFERENCE BEI NG DRAWN BY THIS TRIBUNAL TO HONBLE HIGH COURT, HONBLE COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 30/06/05 IN TRC NO. 13 AND 14/2000 DECIDED IS SUE AGAINST ASSESSEE. HONBLE COURT HELD THAT, UNDER WEALTH TAX ACT 1957, MARKET VALUE OF LAND IN EXCESS OF SEALING FIXED UND ER URBAN LAND CEALING ACT, MUST BE DETERMINED, BASED UPON OFFER O F HYPOTHETICAL BUYER. HONBLE COURT DIRECTED TRIBUNAL TO DETERMINE MARKET VALUE OF BOTH IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OWNED BY AS SESSEE BEING CHAMUNDI VIHAR LAND, MYSORE AND 28 ACRES LAND IN BANGALORE PALACE COMPOUND. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 12/09/05 DIRECTED LD.AO TO DETERMINE MARKET VALUE O F TWO IMMOVABLE AS PER DIRECTIONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURT. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT, ON IDENTICAL SET SITUATI ON HONBLE HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CWT VS SRIKANTDUTTA NARSIMAHARAJAH WADEYAR, HONBLE HIGH COURT SIMILARLY HELD THAT, VALUE OF LA ND MUST BE DETERMINED UNDER SECTION 7 OF WEALTH TAX ACT 1957, ASSUMING THERE IS A HYPOTHETICAL OPEN MARKET AND THERE IS A HYPOTHETICAL WTA NOS.26 TO 28/BANG/17 & WTA NOS. 4 TO 7/BANG/20 & CO NOS.130 TO 132/BANG/18 PAGE 6 OF 17 PURCHASER WITH HYPOTHETICAL BIDS. AGAINST THIS ORDE R, SLP WAS FILED BEFORE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. HONBLE SUPREME COURT AFTER CONSIDERING FACTS AND HAVING REGARDS TO LAW A PPLICABLE UNDER URBAN LAND CEILING ACT AS WELL AS WEALTH TAX ACT, H ELD AS UNDER: 22. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RESPECTIVE SUBMISSIONS BY GIVING OUR DEEP THOUGHTS THERETO WITH REFERENCE TO THE RECORD OF THE CASE. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE VALUATION OF THE ASSET IN QUESTION HAS TO BE IN THE MANNER PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE ACT. SUCH A VALUATION HAS TO BE ON THE VALUATION DATE WHICH HAS REFERENCE TO THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT IF AND ASSESSMENT WAS TO BE MADE UNDER THE ACT FOR THAT YEAR. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS 31ST OF MARCH IMME DIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE VALUATION ARRIVE D AT AS ON THE DATE OF THE ASSET IS A VALUATION ON WHICH TH E WEALTH TAX IS ASSESSABLE. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE READING OF SECTION 7 OF THE ACT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO KEEP HYPOTHET ICAL SITUATION IN MIND, NAMELY, IF THE ASSET IN QUESTION IS TO BE SOLD IN THE OPEN MARKET, WHAT PRICE IT WOULD FETCH. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO FORM AN OPINION ABOUT THE ESTIMATION OF SUCH PRISE THAT IS LIKELY TO BE RECEI VED IF THE PROPERTY WERE TO BE SOLD. THERE IS NO ACTUAL SALE A ND ONLY A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION OF A SALE IS TO BE A CONTEMP LATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER 24. THUS, THE TAX OFFICER HAS TO FORM AN OPINION AB OUT THE ESTIMATED PRICE IF THE SAID WERE TO BE SOLD IN THE ASSUMED MARKET AND ESTIMATED PRICE WOULD BE THE ONE WHICH A ND ASSUMED ARE WILLING PURCHASER WOULD PAY FOR IT. ON THESE RECKONING, THE ASSET HAS TO BE VALUED IN THE ORDINA RY WAY. 25. THE HIGH COURT HAS ACCEPTED, AND RIGHTLY SO, TH AT SINCE THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION CAME WITHIN THE MISCHIEF O F DEL CEILING ACT IT WOULD HAVE DEPRESSING EFFECT INSOFAR AS THE PRICE WHICH THE ASSUMED ARE WILLING PURCHASER WOULD PAY FOR SUCH PROPERTY. 26. HOWEVER, THE QUESTION IS AS TO WHAT PRICE THE W ILLING PURCHASER WOULD OFFER IN SUCH A SCENARIO? 27. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, WE MAY TAKE NOTE OF CERTAIN RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE CEILI NG ACT, WTA NOS.26 TO 28/BANG/17 & WTA NOS. 4 TO 7/BANG/20 & CO NOS.130 TO 132/BANG/18 PAGE 7 OF 17 WHICH ARE EVEN NOTICED BY THE HIGH COURT. WE WILL REPRODUCE HERE SECTION 3, 5, 10 (1) AND 10 (3) AND NARRATE THE SCOPE OF THE OTHER RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF PRODU CING THE TEXT THEREOF . 3. PERSONS NOT ENTITLED TO HOLD VACANT LAND IN EXCE SS OF THE CEILING LIMIT . EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ACT, ON AND FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS ACT, NO PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO HOLD ANY VACANT LAND IN EXCESS OF THE CEILING LIMIT IN THE TERRITOR IES TO WHICH THIS ACT APPLIES UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 1. 5. TRANSFER OF VACANT LAND . (1)IN ANY STATE TO WHICH THIS ACT APPLIES IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, WHERE ANY PERSON WHO HAD HELD VACANT LAND IN EXCESS OF THE CEILING LIMIT AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD COMMENCING ON THE APPOINTED DAY AND ENDING WITH THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS ACT, HAS TRANSFERRED SUCH LAND OR PART THEREOF BY WAY OF SALE, MORTGAGE, GIFT , LEASE OR OTHERWISE, THE EXTENT OF THE LAND SO TRANSFERRED SHALL ALSO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN CALCULATING THE EXTENT OF VACANT LAND HELD BY SUCH PERSON AND THE EXCESS VACANT LAND IN RELATION TO SU CH PERSON SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER, BE SELECTED OUT OF THE VACANT LAND HELD BY HIM AFTER SUCH TRANSFER AND IN CASE THE ENTIRE EXCESS VACANT LAND CANNOT BE SO SELECTED, THE BALANCE, OR WHERE N O VACANT LAND IS HELD BY HIM AFTER THE TRANSFER, THE ENTIRE EXCESS VACANT LAND, SHALL BE SELECTED OUT OF THE VACANT LAND HELD BY THE TRANSFEREE: PROVIDED THAT WHERE SUCH PERSON HAS TRANSFERRED HIS VACANT LAND T O MORE THAN ONE PERSON, THE BALANCE, OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE ENTIRE EXCESS VACANT LAND AFORESAID, SH ALL BE SELECTED OUT OF THE VACANT LAND HELD BY EACH OF THE TRANSFEREES IN THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE AREA OF THE VACANT LAND TRANSFERRED TO HIM BEARS TO THE TOT AL AREA OF THE LAND TRANSFERRED TO ALL THE TRANSFEREES . (2)WHERE ANY EXCESS VACANT LAND IS SELECTED OUT OF THE VACANT LAND TRANSFERRED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), THE TRANSFER OF THE EXCESS VACANT LAND SO SELECTED WTA NOS.26 TO 28/BANG/17 & WTA NOS. 4 TO 7/BANG/20 & CO NOS.130 TO 132/BANG/18 PAGE 8 OF 17 SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE NULL AND VOID. (3)IN ANY STAT E TO WHICH THIS ACT APPLIES IN THE FIRST INSTANCE AND IN ANY STATE WHICH ADOPTS THIS ACT UNDER CLAUSE (1) OF ARTICLE 252 OF THE CONSTITUTION, NO PERSON HOLDING VACANT LAND IN EXCESS OF THE CEILING LIMIT IMMEDIAT ELY BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS ACT SHALL TRANSFER ANY SUCH LAND OR PART THEREOF BY WAY OF SALE, MORTGAGE, GIFT, LEASE OR OTHERWISE UNTIL HE HAS FURNISHED A STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 6 AND A NOTIFICATION REGARDING THE EXCESS VACANT LAND HELD BY HIM HAS BEEN PUBLISHED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 10; AND ANY SUCH TRANSFER MADE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THIS PROVISION SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE NULL AND VOID. 10. ACQUISITION OF VACANT LAND IN EX CESS OF CEILING LIMIT. - (1) AS SOON AS MAY BE AFTER THE SERVICE OF THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 9 ON THE PERSON CONCERNED, THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY SHALL CAUSE A NOTIFICATION GIVING THE PARTICULARS OF THE VACANT LAND HELD BY SUCH PERSON IN EXCESS OF THE CEILING LIMIT AND STATING THAT (I)SUCH VACANT LAND IS TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE CONCERNED STATE GOVERNMENT; AND (II)THE CLAIMS OF ALL PERSON INTERESTED IN SUCH VAC ANT LAND MAY BE MADE BY THEM PERSONALLY OR BY THEIR AGENTS GIVING PARTICULARS OF THE NATURE OF THEIR INTERESTS IN SUCH LAND, TO BE PUBLISHED FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF THE STATE CONCERNED AND IN SUCH OTHER MANNER AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. (3) AT ANY TIME AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF THE NOTIFICATION UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY MAY, BY NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF THE STATE CONCERNED, DECLARE TH AT THE EXCESS VACANT LAND REFERRED TO IN THE NOTIFICAT ION PUBLISHED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL, WITH EFFECT FROM SUCH DATE AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE DECLARATION, BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND UPON THE PUBLICATION OF WTA NOS.26 TO 28/BANG/17 & WTA NOS. 4 TO 7/BANG/20 & CO NOS.130 TO 132/BANG/18 PAGE 9 OF 17 SUCH DECLARATION, SUCH LAND SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE VESTED ABSOLUTELY IN THE STATE GOVERNMENT FREE FROM ALL ENCUMBRANCES WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE SO SPECIFIED. 28. SECTION 3 OF THE CEILING ACT, AS IS CLEAR FROM ITS READING, IS THE MAIN PROVISION. IT CATEGORICALLY PROVIDES TH AT THE PERSON SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO HOLD ANY VACANT LAN D IN EXCESS OF THE CEILING LIMIT ON THE TERRITORIES TO W HICH THE ACT APPLIES, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT ITSELF, FROM THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACT. A CT CAME INTO FORCE ON 17/02/76. THE EFFECT OF THIS SEC TION WAS THAT ON AND FROM 17/02/76 THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTI TLED TO HOLD THE VACANT LAND IN QUESTION, WHICH WAS IN EXCE SS OF THE CEILING LIMIT. SECTION 4 OF THE ACT PROVIDES FO R THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CEILING LIMIT OF THE PERSON IS TO BE ASCERTAINED. SECTION 5 (1) OF THE CEILING ACT DEALS WITH TRANSFE R OF THE VACANT LAND IN EXCESS OF THE CEILING LIMIT AT ANY T IME DURING THE PERIOD COMMENCING ON THE APPOINTED DAY T HAT IS 28/01/76 AND ENDING WITH THE COMMENCEMENT OF THI S ACT THAT THE 17/02/76. UNDER THIS SUBSECTION, IF AN Y PERSON HAS TRANSFERRED SUCH LAND, THE EXTENT OF THE LAND S O TRANSFERRED SHALL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN CALCULAT ING THE EXTENT OF VACANT LAND HELD BY SUCH PERSON. SUBSECTI ON (3) OF SECTION 5 OF THE CEILING ACT CONTAINS A PROHIBIT ION TO TRANSFER ANY VACANT LAND HELD BY A PERSON IN EXCESS OF THE CEILING LIMIT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT O F THE ACT TILL A STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 6 IS FURNISHED A ND NOTIFICATION REGARDING EXCESS LAND HAS BEEN PUBLISH ED UNDER SECTION 10 (1) OF THE ACT. ANY TRANSFER MADE IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE SUBSECTION SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE NULL AND VOID. SECTION 6 (1) OF THE CEILING ACT STATUTORILY OBLIGA TES THAT EVERY PERSON HOLDING VACANT LAND IN EXCESS OF THE C EILING LIMIT AS ON OR AFTER THE 17TH DAY FEBRUARY 1976 IS REQUIRED TO FILE A STATEMENT IN THE PRESCRIBED FROM, SPECIFY ING THE VACANT LAND WITHIN THE CEILING LIMIT WHICH HE DESIR ES TO RATING. THE 1ST PROVISO TO SECTION 6 (1) OF THE CEI LING ACT MAKES THE OPERATION OF THE ACT RETROSPECTIVE IN FIX ING 17TH OF FEBRUARY 1975 AS THE DATE TO DETERMINED WHETHER A PERSON HOLDS VACANT LAND IN EXCESS OF THE CEILING L IMIT. IF WTA NOS.26 TO 28/BANG/17 & WTA NOS. 4 TO 7/BANG/20 & CO NOS.130 TO 132/BANG/18 PAGE 10 OF 17 FOR ANY REASON THE STATEMENT IS NOT FILED BY THE PE RSON HOLDING VACANT LAND IN EXCESS OF THE CEILING LIMIT, THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY MAY DIRECT HIM TO FILE SUCH STA TEMENT WITHIN A FIXED PERIOD. UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE CEILING ACT, ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT FILED UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE CEILING ACT, A DRAFT STATEMENT IS PREPARED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AN D THE SAME IS OBSERVED ON THE APPLICANT/PERSON, WHO IS GI VEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE IS OBJECTIONS, IF ANY. AFTER CO NSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS THAT MAY BE FILED WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED, THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY SHALL DETERMINE D THE VACANT LAND HELD BY THE PERSON CONCERNED IN EXCESS OF THE CEILING LIMIT AND SERVE THE DRAFT STATEMENT SO ALTE RED ON THE PERSON CONCERNED. THE ALTERED DRAFT STATEMENT I S ALSO KNOWN AS FINAL STATEMENT UNDER THE ACTS. SECTION 1 0 OF THE CEILING ACT PROVIDES FOR ACQUISITION OF VACANT LAND IN EXCESS OF THE CEILING LIMIT. SECTION 10 (1) OF THE ACT AND RESEARCHERS THAT THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER THE FINAL STATEMENT IS SERVED ON THE CONCERNED PERSON, TO ISSUE A NOTIFICATION GIVING TH E PARTICULARS OF THE VACANT LAND HELD BY SUCH PERSON IN EXCESS OF THE CEILING LIMIT, AND FURTHER NOTIFIED T HAT SUCH VACANT LAND EAST TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE CONCERNED ST ATE GOVERNMENT AND INVITE CLAIMS FROM ALL PERSONS INTER ESTED IN SUCH LAND, GIVING PARTICULARS OF THE NATURE OF T HEIR INTEREST IN SUCH LAND. THE NOTIFICATION REQUIRES TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL A OF THE STATE CONCERNED AND ALSO IN SUCH OTHER MANNER PRESCRIBED IN THE RULES. UNDER SUBSECTION (2), THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY IS EXPECTED TO CONSIDER ANY CLAIMS THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE PERSON S INTERESTED IN THE VACANT LAND NOTIFIED UNDER SUBSEC TION (1) AND DETERMINE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF SUCH CLAIMS AND PASS SUCH ORDER AS HE DEEMS FIT. SUBSECTION (3) OF SECTION 10 OF THE CEILING ACT PROVIDES FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTI FICATION VESTING VACANT LAND IN THE STATE GOVERNMENT FREE FR OM ALL ENCUMBRANCES. UNDER THIS SUBSECTION THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF THE NOTIFICATION OFFICIAL GAZETTE CONCERNED, DECLARED THAT EXCESS LAND REFERR ED TO IN SUBSECTION (1) SHALL W.E.F. SUCH DATE AS MAY BE SPE CIFIED IN THE DECLARATION, BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. 1 NOTIFICATION WAS PUBLISHED, AND DECLARATION IS MADE, SUCH LAND SHALL BE DEEMED TO H AVE WTA NOS.26 TO 28/BANG/17 & WTA NOS. 4 TO 7/BANG/20 & CO NOS.130 TO 132/BANG/18 PAGE 11 OF 17 WASTED ABSOLUTELY IN THE STATE GOVERNMENT FREE FROM ALL ENCUMBRANCES W.E.F. THE DATE SPECIFIED. SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 10 OF THE CEILING ACT P ROVIDES FOR MAINTENANCE OF STATUS QUO IN RESPECT OF EXCESS VACANT LAND PROPOSED TO BE ACQUIRED DURING THE PERIOD COMMENCING ON THE DATE OF PUBLICATION UNDER SUB-SEC TION (1) AND ENDING WITH THE DATE SPECIFIED IN THE DECLA RATION MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (3). SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 10 OF THE CEILING ACT PR OVIDES THAT THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY SHALL ISSUE A NOTICE I N WRITING TO ANY PERSON WHO MAY BE IN POSITION TO SURRENDER O R DELIVER POSSESSION TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT OR TO TH E PERSON DULY AUTHORISED IN THIS BEHALF. THE PERSON T O WHOM THE NOTICE IS ISSUED IS GIVEN 30 DAYS TIME TO COMPL Y WITH THE NOTICE. UNDER SUB-SECTION (6), IF A PERSON FAIL S TO DELIVER POSSESSION WITHIN THAT PERIOD, THE COMPETEN T AUTHORITY WILL TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO TAKE POSSESS ION ITSELF. SECTIONS 11 AND 14 OF THE CEILING ACT PROVIDE FOR DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE PERSON CONCERNED FOR THE VACANT LAND ACQUIRED AND FOR THE MODE OF PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT TO SUCH PERSON. SECTION 18 OF THE CEILING ACT LAYS DOWN THE PENALTY THAT MAY BE I MPOSED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS IN THE STATEMENT FIL ED UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE ACT. SECTION 20 OF THE CEILING ACT CONFERS ON THE STATE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO EXEMPT ANY PER SON HOLDING VACANT LAND IN EXCESS OF THE CEILING LIMIT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. UNDER SECTION 33 OF THE CEIL ING ACT, ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER PASSED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT MAY FILE AN APPEA L BEFORE A FORUM CREATED UNDER THE ACT, EXCEPT AGAINS T THOSE ORDERS MADE UNDER SECTION 11 OR AN ORDER MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 30. 29. THE COMBINED EFFECT OF THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS , IN THE CONTEXT OF INSTANT APPEALS, IS THAT THE VACANT LAND IN EXCESS OF CEILING LIMIT WAS NOT ACQUIRED BY THE STATE GOVE RNMENT AS NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 10(1) OF THE CEILING ACT HAD NOT BEEN ISSUED. HOWEVER, THE PROCESS HAD STARTED A S THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED STATEMENT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6(1) OF THE CEILING ACT A ND THE WTA NOS.26 TO 28/BANG/17 & WTA NOS. 4 TO 7/BANG/20 & CO NOS.130 TO 132/BANG/18 PAGE 12 OF 17 COMPETENT AUTHORITY HAD ALSO PREPARED A DRAFT STATE MENT UNDER SECTION 8 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSE SSEE. FACT REMAINS THAT SO LONG AS THE ACT WAS OPERATIVE, BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 3 THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED T O HOLD ANY VACANT LAND IN EXCESS OF THE CEILING LIMIT. ORD ER WAS ALSO PASSED TO THE EFFECT THAT THE MAXIMUM COMPENSA TION PAYABLE WAS RS.2 LAKHS. LET US KEEP THESE FACTORS I N MIND AND ON THAT BASIS APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7 OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT. 30.THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION TH E PRICE WHICH THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE FETCHED ON THE VALUAT ION DATE, I.E. THE MARKET PRICE, AS IF IT WAS NOT UNDER THE RIGORS OF CEILING ACT. SUCH ESTIMATION OF THE PRICE WHICH THE ASSET WOULD HAVE FETCHED IF SOLD IN THE OPEN MARKET ON TH E VALUATION DATE(S), WOULD CLEARLY BE WRONG EVEN ON T HE ANALOGY/RATIONALE GIVEN BY THE HIGH COURT AS IT ACC EPTED THAT RESTRICTIONS AND PROHIBITIONS UNDER THE CEILIN G ACT WOULD HAVE DEPRESSING EFFECT ON THE VALUE OF THE AS SET. THEREFORE, THE VALUATION AS DONE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. 31.LET US PROCEED ON THE SAME LINES AS DELINEATED/D RAWN BY THE HIGH COURT ITSELF, NAMELY, ONE HAS TO ASSUME THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS SALEABLE IN THE OPEN MA RKET AND ESTIMATE THE PRICE WHICH THE ASSUMED WILLING PURCHASER WOULD PAY FOR SUCH A PROPERTY. WHEN THE A SSET IS UNDER THE CLUTCHES OF THE CEILING ACT AND IN RES PECT OF THE SAID ASSET/VACANT LAND, THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE CEILING ACT HAD. ALREADY DETERMINED THE MAXIMUM COMPENSATION OF RS.2 LAKHS, HOW MUCH PRICE SUCH A PROPERTY WOULD FETCH IF SOLD IN THE OPEN MAR KET? WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND WHAT A REASONABLY ASSUMED BUYER WOULD PAY FOR SUCH A PROPERTY IF HE WERE TO B UY THE SAME. SUCH A PROPERTY WHICH IS GOING TO BE TAKEN OV ER BY THE GOVERNMENT AND IS AWAITING NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE ACT FOR THIS PURPOSE, WOULD NOT F ETCH MORE THAN RS.2 LAKHS AS THE ASSUMED BUYER KNOWS THA T THE MOMENT THIS PROPERTY IS TAKEN OVER BY THE GOVERNMENT, HE WILL RECEIVE THE COMPENSATION OF RS. 2 LAKHS ONLY. WE ARE NOT OBLIVIOUS OF THOSE CATEGORIE S OF BUYERS WHO MAY BUY -DISPUTED PROPERTIES' BY TAKING RISKS WITH THE HOPE THAT LEGAL PROCEEDINGS MAY ULTIMATELY BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN SUCH A EVE NTUALITY WTA NOS.26 TO 28/BANG/17 & WTA NOS. 4 TO 7/BANG/20 & CO NOS.130 TO 132/BANG/18 PAGE 13 OF 17 THEY ARE GOING TO GET MUCH HIGHER VALUE. HOWEVER, A S STATED ABOVE, HYPOTHETICAL PRESUMPTIONS OF SUCH SAL ES ARE TO BE DISCARDED AS WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THE COND UCT OF A REASONABLE PERSON AND 'ORDINARY WAY' OF THE PRESUMPTUOUS SALE. WHEN SUCH A PRESUMED BUYER IS NO T GOING TO OFFER MORE THAN RS.2 LAKHS, OBVIOUS ANSWER IS THAT THE ESTIMATED PRICE WHICH SUCH ASSET WOULD FET CH IF SOLD IN THE OPEN MARKET ON THE VALUATION DATE(S) WO ULD NOT BE MORE THAN RS.2 LAKHS. HAVING SAID SO, ONE AS PECT NEEDS TO BE POINTED OUT, WHICH WAS MISSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL WHI LE DECIDING THE CASE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2 LAKHS IS IN RESPECT OF ONLY TH E 'EXCESS LAND' WHICH IS COVERED BY SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE CEILING ACT. THE TOTAL VACANT LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF WEALTH TAX ACT IS NOT ONLY EXCESS LAND BUT OTHER PA RT OF THE LAND WHICH WOULD HAVE REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSE E IN ANY CASE. THEREFORE, THE VALUATION OF THE EXCESS LA ND, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CEILING ACT, WOULD B E RS.2 LAKHS. TO THAT MARKET VALUE OF THE REMAINING LAND W ILL HAVE TO BE ADDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARRIVING AT THE VALUATION FOR PAYMENT OF WEALTH TAX. THE QUESTION FORMULATED IS ANSWERED IN THE AFORESAID MANNER. 7. LD. CIT DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON VIEW TAKEN BY HO NBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES CASE. HE SUBMITT ED THAT THERE IS NO APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST SAID ORDER F OR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THUS ATTAINED FINALITY. HE SUBMIT TED THAT LD. AO WAS RIGHT IN COMPUTING VALUE OF LAND AS PER SECT ION 7 OF WEALTH TAX ACT. 8. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SID ES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN AFORESTATED PARAGRAPH ANAL YSED MANNER IN WHICH VALUATION OF PROPERTY SHOULD BE DET ERMINED IN RESPECT OF LAND, WHICH WOULD HAVE REMAINED WITH ASS ESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF ORDER PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW IN BOT H THE ROUNDS OF ASSESSMENTS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT LD.AO HAS NOT DETE RMINED THE VACANT LAND AVAILABLE WITH ASSESSEE AFTER EXCESS LA ND BEING TAKEN OVER BY GOVERNMENT. LD.AO ALSO HAS NOT VERIFIED NOT IFICATION ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT IN RESPECT OF THE SAME, WHICH COULD WTA NOS.26 TO 28/BANG/17 & WTA NOS. 4 TO 7/BANG/20 & CO NOS.130 TO 132/BANG/18 PAGE 14 OF 17 ASCERTAIN EXACT AREA OF LAND THAT REMAINED WITH ASS ESSEE. HONBLE SUPREME COURT CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT LAND THAT REMAINED WITH ASSESSEE, HAS TO BE VALUED AS PER SECTION 7 OF WEALTH TAX ACT AND IN RESPECT OF EXCESS LAND, VALUATION MUST BE DE TERMINED ON BASIS OF MAXIMUM COMPENSATION COMPUTED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE CEILING ACT. LD.CIT, DR OBJECTE D FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID OUT BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ASSESSEES BROTHERS. WE REJECT SUCH OBJECTION RAISED BY LD.CIT , DR AS ADMITTEDLY, FACTS INVOLVED IN ASSESSEES CASE IS SI MILAR AND IDENTICAL TO THAT DEALT WITH BY HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN CASE OF ASSESSEES BROTHERS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING HONBLE SUPREME COURTS OBSE RVATIONS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO LD.AO TO CALL FOR ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS/DETAILS IN RESPECT OF EX CESS LAND DETERMINED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER CEILING ACT AND COMPENSATION AWARDED IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. IN RES PECT OF VALUATION OF LAND COVERED BY NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY, VALUE WOULD BE TAKEN TO BE THE MAXIMUM COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF BOT H PROPERTIES. FROM THE DETAILS SO FILED, LD.AO SHALL DETERMINE AR EA ACTUALLY RETAINED WITH ASSESSEE, WHICH WOULD BE VALUED AS PE R SECTION 7 OF WEALTH TAX ACT. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AS PER LAW. ACCORDINGLY THESE GROUNDS RAISED STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 10. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, TAKIN G A CONSISTENT VIEW ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE SET ASIDE T HE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN ALL THESE THREE YEARS AND REMIT THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE AO ON SIMILAR DIRECTIONS AS IN AYS 1986-87 & 1987-88. WTA NOS.26 TO 28/BANG/17 & WTA NOS. 4 TO 7/BANG/20 & CO NOS.130 TO 132/BANG/18 PAGE 15 OF 17 WTA NOS.4 TO 7/BANG/2020 (AYS 2002-03 TO 2005-06) 11. COMMON GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS, EXC EPT CHANGE IN FIGURES AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN WT A 4/BANG/2020 ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (APPEALS) HEREI NAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE APPELLATE OFFICER, IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR THE YEAR IS AGAINST LAW, FACTS OF THE CASE AND WEIG HT OF EVIDENCES. 2. THE LEARNED APPELLATE OFFICER HAS ERRED IN CONCL UDING ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BY APPELLANT IN THE APPEAL FOR TH E ASST YEAR 2002-03 HAVE BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE APPELLANT BY THE HONOURABLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE CIT VS SMT. MEENAKSHI DEVI AVARU (DECEASED) & ANOTH ER [2019] 410 ITR 306 (KARN). 3. THE LEARNED APPELLATE OFFICER HAS NOT DECIDED TH E ISSUE THE PRESENT ORDER PASSED BY WTO 11(1) IS NOT AN INV ALID ORDER IN VIEW OF SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. A) THE LEARNED APPELLATE OFFICER HAS ERRED IN CO NCLUDING THE VALUATION OF THE 28 ACRES OF LAND IN PALACE COM POUND THE OWNERSHIP OF WHICH VESTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF KAR NATAKA AND THE APPELLANT IS IN POSSESSION OF THE SAME BY VIRTU E OF THE APEX COURT ORDER AS A TRUSTEE HAS BEEN PROPERLY DETERMIN ED AT RS. 2,04,20,96,2001- (RUPEES TWO HUNDRED FOUR CRORES TW ENTY LAKHS NINETY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED ONLY). B) THE VALUATION OF 28 ACRES OF LAND AT GUIDANCE VA LUE OF RS. 1671 PER SQUARE FEET NOW MADE BY AO WITHOUT CONSIDE RING 25% OF THE AREA REQUIRED FOR ROADS, DRAINAGE AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT AS PER EQUITY. C) THE VALUATION NOW MADE BE SET ASIDE AND THE SAME BE DIRECTED TO BE DETERMINED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER AS PER SC HEDULE III AS PER THE DECISIONS OF THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS INCLUD ING THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. WTA NOS.26 TO 28/BANG/17 & WTA NOS. 4 TO 7/BANG/20 & CO NOS.130 TO 132/BANG/18 PAGE 16 OF 17 5. THE APPELLATE OFFICER HAS ERRED IN NOT CONCLUDIN G THE 28 ACRES OF BANGALORE PALACE GROUND WHICH HAS GIVEN IN COME OF RS. 1,68,292 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IS NOT LIABLE TO WEALTH TAX. 6. THE APPELLATE OFFICER HAS ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE ISSUE THE WEALTH TAX PAYABLE BY THE APPELLANT ON THE 28 A CRES OF LAND FOR A Y 1999-2000 TO 2002-03 IS NOT A DEBT TO BE DE DUCTED FOR DETERMINATION OF WEALTH. 7. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT SHE MAY BE PERMITTED RA ISE FURTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS AP PEAL. 12. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN AY 2002-03 ARE THAT TH E AO REOPENED THE WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENTS AS SHE HAD NOT INCLUDED THE VALUE OF 28 ACRES OF LAND APPURTENANT TO THE BANGALORE PALACE IN HER WEA LTH TAX RETURNS WHEREAS THE VALUE OF SUCH LAND WAS RS.204.23 CRORES FOR AY 2002-03 AS PER THE GUIDANCE VALUE OF SUCH URBAN LAND NOTIFIED BY THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA. THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT SHE HAD ALREADY FILED HER RETURNS AND S HE CEASED TO BE THE OWNER OF THE SAID LAND FOLLOWING THE ACQUISITION BY THE STATE GOVT. AND THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED FROM THE GOVT. WAS NOT AN ASS ET LIABLE TO WEALTH TAX. FURTHER, THE MATTER OF VALUATION WAS TO BE RE FERRED TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. THE AO WAS HOWEVER OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED TO BE THE OWNER OF THE SAID LAND AND MADE PROTECTIVE A SSESSMENT IN HER HANDS. 13. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) RELIED ON THE HONB LE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES SISTER S IN CIT V. SMT. MEENAKSHI DEVI AVARU (DECD.) THROUGH L/H KAMAKSHI D EVI [2019] 410 ITR 306 (KAR) FOR THE AYS 1999-2000 TO 2004-05 AND APPLYING THE RATIO OF THAT JUDGMENT, DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. A GAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEALS BEFORE US. WTA NOS.26 TO 28/BANG/17 & WTA NOS. 4 TO 7/BANG/20 & CO NOS.130 TO 132/BANG/18 PAGE 17 OF 17 14. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE O PINION THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED BY THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL DATED 28.8.2019 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN WTA NOS.5 & 6/BANG/20 12 FOR THE AYS 1986-87 & 1987-88. ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THE ISSU E IN THESE YEARS TO THE FILE OF AO ON SIMILAR DIRECTIONS AS IN AYS 1986-87 & 1987-88. 15. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A ND THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021. SD/- SD/- ( N V VASUDEV AN ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R BANGALORE, DATED, THE 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2021. / DESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.