Brijendra Singh L/H, Kangra V. ACIT, Palampur

ITA 296/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 29621514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 1973-1974
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI SHREE SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: A K JINDAL
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Period of limitation; Valuation report; Time period of passing order
• Section: 147; 263; 144; 139; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER WTA NOS.5 TO 13 /CHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1971-72 TO 1979-80) AND WTA NOS.14 TO 16 /CHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1994-95 TO 1996-97) TIKKA BRIJENDRA SINGH VS. THE A.C.W.T., L/H LATE RAJA HARMOHINDER PALAMPUR. SINGH OF DADA SIBA, KANGRA. PAN: AAAPS6316H AND ITA NOS.296 TO 303 /CHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1973-74 TO 1980-81) TIKKA BRIJENDRA SINGH VS. THE A.C.I.T., L/H LATE RAJA HARMOHINDER PALAMPUR. SINGH OF DADA SIBA, KANGRA. PAN: AAAPS6316H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.K.JINDAL RESPONDENT BY : SMT.JAISHREE SHARMA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.10.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : OUT OF THESE 20 APPEALS, NINE APPEALS BY THE ASSES SEE ARE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALT H TAX (APPEALS), SHIMLA DATED 31.12.2009 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 1971-72 TO 1979- 80 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 16(3) OF WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957. FURTHER EIGHT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SHIMLA DA TED 18.01.2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1973-74 TO 1980-81 AGA INST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THREE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF 2 WEALTH TAX (APPEALS), SHIMLA DATED 12.01.2010 RELAT ING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994-95 TO 1996-97 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U /S 16(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BE ING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIE NCE. WTA NOS.5 TO 13/CHD/2010 : ASSESSMENT YEARS 1971-72 TO 1979-80 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THE APPEALS. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN WTA NOS. 5 TO 7, 12 & 13/CHD/2010 ARE SAME AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN WTA N O. 5/CHD/2010 READ AS UNDER: 1. THAT LEARNED CWT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.90,000/- IN THE VALUE OF AGRICULTUR AL LAND WHICH IS ADHOC AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS/EVIDENCE TO SH OW THAT THE VALUE DECLARED BY APPELLANT IS WRONG. 2. THAT LEARNED CWT (APPEALS) (A.Y. 1971-72) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF 2,59,439/- ON ACCOUNT O F COMPENSATION AWARD RECEIVED UP TO THE VALUATION DAT E BY TREATING THE SAME AS TAXABLE WEALTH WITHOUT BRINGIN G ANYTHING ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS IN OWNERSHIP, CONTROL OR POSSESSION OF THE AMOUNT ON T HE VALUATION DATE. 4. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN WTA NOS. 8 TO 11 /CHD/2010 ARE SAME AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN WTA NO. 8/CHD/2010 READ A S UNDER 1. THE LEARNED CWT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 1,80,0007/- IN THE VALUE OF AGRICU LTURAL LAND WHICH IS ADHOC AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS/EVIDENCE TO SH OW THAT THE VALUE DECLARED BY APPELLANT IS WRONG. 2. THAT LEARNED CWT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE ADDITION OF RS. 23,09,234/- ON ACCOUNT OF BANK DEPO SIT IN THE NAME OF MRS. SURAJ DEVI & TIKKA VIJAY SINGH UNDER T HE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THAT LEARNED CWT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 48,34,465/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMPEN SATION AWARD 3 RECEIVED UP TO THE VALUATION DATE BY TREATING THE S AME AS TAXABLE WEALTH WITHOUT BRINGING ANYTHING ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS IN OWNERSHIP, CONTROL OR POSSESSION O F THE AMOUNT ON THE VALUATION DATE. 5. THE ASSESSEE IN WTA NOS.5 TO 13/CHD/2010 HAS ALS O MADE A PRAYER TO RAISE THE FOLLOWING COMMON ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL: THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY ACIT U/S 16(3) ON 8.2.20 07 IS ILLEGAL & VOID ABINITIO BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION, HENCE NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER, APPELLATE ORDER, RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FURTHER ORDER PASSED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL WERE PASSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE AND HAVE BEEN ELABORATELY REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARAS 1 TO 3 AT PAGES 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 16(3) OF THE ACT ON 8.2.2007 BEING BARRED B Y LIMITATION AND HENCE NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND O F APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING PURELY LEGAL IS ADMITTED FOR ADJ UDICATION. WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL BEFOR E ADJUDICATING THE APPEALS ON THE MERITS. 7. ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY THE LEARNED A .R. FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO BY THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVEN UE IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION IN PASSING THE PRESENT ASSESSME NT ORDER AND WE SHALL REFER TO THEM IN THE PARAS HEREINUNDER. 8. THE SERIATIM LIST OF EVENTS IN RELATION TO THE P ROCEEDINGS COMPLETED BY VARIOUS AUTHORITIES IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 16.3.1990 ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 16(5) AT A SSESSED WEALTH OF RS.1,50,000/- WAS PASSED. 22.2.1993 CWT(A), PATIALA VIDE ORDER UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ASSESSMENT DE-NOVO AND DETERMINE THE CORRECT STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS 4 ALSO DIRECTED TO KEEP IN VIEW THE FINDING OF CIT (APPEALS) GIVEN IN ORDER DATED 29.7.1985 IN APPEAL NO.134/84-85 IN THE WEALTH TAX CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1978-79. 30.3.1995 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 16(3) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT WAS PASSED. 7.1.1997 CWT(A), PATIALA PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECT ION 25(2) VIDE WHICH THE ORDER PASSED ON 30.3.1995 WAS CANCELLED WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO COMPUTE THE WEALTH AFRESH. 6.6.1997 FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER SE CTION 16(5) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT. 17.1.2000 CWT(A), PATIALA SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT MADE TO BE FRAMED DE-NOVO. 23.5.2000 DATE OF DEMISE OF RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH, ASSESSEE. 01.9.2003 CIVIL SUIT BETWEEN LEGAL HEIRS OF ASSESSE E AND OTHER PERSONS WAS DECREED BY LD.ADJ IN FAVOUR OF FOUR CLAIMANTS AND ALSO STATUS OF LEGAL HEIRS DECIDED. 20.4.2004 THE TRIBUNAL IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE UPHELD THE ORDER PASSED BY CWT(A), PATIALA AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR RE-ASSESSMENT AS PER THE DIRECTION OF CWT(A), PATIALA. 1.12.2005 INTERIM ORDER WAS PASSED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT STAYING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE WTO/ITO IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8.3.2006 THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH STAYED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN VIEW OF THE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THEM CONCERNING STATUS OF VARIOUS CLAIMANTS AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF LATE RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH. 8.3.2006 THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE KEPT IN ABEYANCE. 26.7.2006 JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH CO URT IN APPEAL IN CIVIL SUIT BETWEEN LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEE. 11.12.2006 THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH CO URT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH WAS VACATED. 8.2.2007 ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN THE HANDS OF LEGAL HEIR OF LATE RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH. 9. THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE WA S THAT THE CWT(A) HAD SET ASIDE THE PROCEEDINGS OF 17.1.2000 AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 8.2.2007. AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE AFTER A GAP OF SEVEN YEARS FROM BEING SET ASIDE, THE SAME WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT TIME LIMIT AS PER SECTION 153(2) OF THE ACT/17A(3) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT PROV IDED THE TIME LIMIT 5 FOR FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT UPTO 31.3.2002. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ORDER OF CWT(A), PATIALA WAS RECEIVED BY T HE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ON 14.2.2000 AS IS APPAR ENT FROM THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT IN THE CIVIL WRIT PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH IN THE M ATTER, THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE WTO WAS NOT CHALLENGED AS I S APPARENT FROM PAGE 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK NO.1 AND EVEN IN THE PRAYER CL AUSE I.E. PARA-29(B) DIRECTIONS WERE SOUGHT FROM THE HON'BLE COURT TO BE ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE PROPOSED ASSESSM ENT TILL THE STATUS OF THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER WAS DECIDED BY THE COM PETENT COURT OF LAW. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT PLACED AT PAGE 27 OF TH E PAPER BOOK-I, WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 1/12/2005 THE PROCEEDINGS AT THE ASSESSMENT LEVEL WERE DIRECTED TO BE STAYED TILL FRESH DIRECTI ONS. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER REFERRED TO THE APPLICA TION MOVED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT U NDER WHICH DIRECTIONS WERE SOUGHT FROM THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT THAT THE PERIOD W.E.F. 1.12.2005 I.E. THE DATE OF THE SAID STAY ORD ER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT TILL THE VACATION/MODIFICATION OF THE SA ID ORDER, SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FOR COMPUTING PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR MAK ING THE ASSESSMENT OF LATE RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH. THE LEARNED A.R. F OR THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY REPLY/COUNTER TO THE PLEADINGS MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES VIDE THE SAID APPLICATION, THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING TIME BARRED ON A DATE PRIOR TO THE SAID ORDER OR OTHERWISE. THE COPY OF ANOTHER INTERIM ORDER PASSED ON 8.3.200 6 BY THE HON'BLE COURT STAYING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF LATE RA JA HARMOHINDER SINGH IS PLACED AT PAGE 34 OF THE PAPER BOOK-I, WHE REIN THE SAID ORDER WAS MODIFIED. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FU RTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST CIVIL SUIT DATED 25.7.2006 UNDER WHICH THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE 6 ASSESSEE WAS DECIDED, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PA GES 131 TO 164 OF THE PAPER BOOK-II. THE INTERIM ORDER OF STAY WAS VACAT ED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ON 11.12.2006 AND COPY OF THE SAME IS PL ACED AT PAGE 35 OF THE PAPER BOOK-I. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED ON 8.2.2007. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE STRESS ED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BECAME TIME BARRED ON 31.3.2002 AND NO PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON 8.2.2007 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 10. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE DREW OUR ATTEN TION TO THE LIST OF EVENTS PLACED AT PAGES 1 TO 3 OF PAPER BOOK-I, UNDE R WHICH AT SR.NO.13 THE ASSESSEE HAD REPORTED THAT ON 17.1.2000 THE CIT (APPEALS) HAD SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN COLUMN NO.14 IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT ON 21.6.2000 RAJA H ARMOHINDER SINGH THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAD DIED. IT WAS FURTHER PO INTED OUT BY THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE THAT AFTER RAJA HARMOH INDER SINGH EXPIRED THERE WERE CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF THE LEGAL HEIRS AN D WHILE THE SAID CLAIMS WERE BEING SETTLED, THE SAID ORDER WAS PASSED BY TH E HON'BLE HIGH COURT STAYING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND CONSEQUENTLY NO ASSESSMENT ORDER COULD BE PASSED. REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17A(4) OF THE ACT AND ALSO THE SIMILAR PROV ISIONS UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT VIDE 153(2A) OF THE ACT, THE PRESENT ORDER WAS PASSED GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COURT AND WA S NOT ILLEGAL OR VOID. IT WAS STRESSED BY THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE THAT IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT WHERE THE ASSESSE E SOUGHT STAY OF THE PROCEEDINGS, NO OBJECTION WAS RAISED AS TO ISSUE OF THE NOTICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEING T IME BARRED. EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE APPEALS OF REVENUE WERE DIS MISSED AS PER THE CONSENSUS OF THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE. OU R ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20.4.2004 AND AL SO 19.5.2004. 7 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APPEALS HAS FILED APPEALS AGAINST THE WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ALL DATED 8.2.2007 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1971-72 TO 1979-80, WHICH HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS LEGAL HEIR OF HIS FATHER RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH. VARIOUS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL WEALTH OF RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH HAS BEEN REFERRED BY US IN PARAS HEREINABOVE. THE ASSE SSMENT IN THE CASE WAS MADE AND THEREAFTER THE SAME WAS VACATED OR SET ASIDE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (APPEALS), PATIALA AND F INALLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS SET ASIDE BY THE CIT (APPEALS), PATI ALA ON 17.1.2000. THE ISSUE ARISING BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES IN THE CAP TIONED ASSESSMENT ORDERS WAS AGAINST THE ASSESSABILITY OF NET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE DETERMINATION OF STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE WH ETHER INDIVIDUAL OR HUF. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS), PATIA LA PASSED ON 17.1.2000, THE REVENUE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL IN ITA NOS.13 TO 19/CHD/2000 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1971-72 TO 1977-78 AND WTA NO.20 TO 25/CHD/2000 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEA RS 1974-75 TO 1979-80 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE I.E. RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH OF DADA SIBA, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH. THE TRIBUNAL VI DE ORDER DATED 20.4.2004 AND 19.5.2004 NOTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT FRESH ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN F RAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE TRIBUNAL THUS HELD THAT AS FRESH ASSESSMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) SETTING ASIDE OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR D E-NOVO ASSESSMENT. THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE WERE THUS DISMISSED. TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS DATED 20.4.2004/19.5.2004. IT WAS PUT TO THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IF NO ASSESSMENT WAS MADE TIL L THE HEARING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHY THE SAID SUBMISSION WAS MA DE BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE FRESH ASSESSMENTS HAVE 8 BEEN FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIV ED THE CONCESSION BY WAY OF DISMISSAL OF APPEALS OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE OF THE ADMISSION MADE BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN VIEW OF ITS SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 12. IN THE YEAR 1995 CIVIL SUIT WAS FILED FOR DECLA RING PARTITION, RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS AND INJUNCTION AGAINST RAJA H ARMOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS UNDER WHICH AN INTERIM STAY ORDER WAS PASSED ON 2.8.1995 WHEREIN RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH WAS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ALIENA TE THE PROPERTY AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER WAS INSTRUCTED NOT TO DISB URSE ANY COMPENSATION AMOUNT TO ANY PERSON. RAJA HARMOHINDE R SINGH EXPIRED ON 23.5.2000. THE CIVIL SUIT REGARDING THE CLAIMANTS OF RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH WAS DECREED IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF TIKKA BRIJENDER SINGH ON 1.9.2003 AND THERE WERE ONLY FOUR REPRESENTATIVES/H EIRS NAMELY TIKKA BRIJENDER SINGH, SMT.SAROJ DEVI, RAJIV KUMAR, SMT.R AGINA SINGH AND SHRI VIJAY SINGH WERE DECLARED ENTITLED FOR PROPERT Y LEFT BY RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH. IN THE SAID JUDGMENT THE ADJ(I) , KANGRA CONSIDERED BALI RAM SHARMA, SNEH LATA SHARMA, ANIL KUMAR SHARM A AS BONAFIDE PURCHASERS OF 47% OF RE-DETERMINED COMPENSATION. I T WAS ALSO ORDERED THAT THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF DETERMINED COMPENSATIO N WAS TO BE EQUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF RAJA HARMO HINDER SINGH. SHRI AJAY SINGH AND HIS MOTHER RANI BHAGYAWATI WERE DISA PPROVED FROM BEING SON AND WIFE OF RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH AND HE NCE COULD NOT GET ANY RIGHT OR ENTITLEMENT IN THE PROPERTY. AGAINST THE ORDER OF ADJ, SHRI AJAY SINGH FILED REGULAR FIRST APPEAL BEING RFA 271 OF 2003 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND INTERIM ORDER OF STAY WAS PASSED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF ADJ, DATED 1.9.2003. 13. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF ADJ DATED 01/09/2003 SH. AJAY SINGH FILED APPEAL IN RFA NO. 271 OF 2003 BEFORE THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AGAINST TIKKA BIRJENDER SINGH & OT HERS. SHRI BIRJENDER 9 SINGH ALSO FILED AN APPEAL FOR MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 1.9.2003 BEING RFA NO.310 OF 2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ALL THE PROPERTY LEFT BY RA JA HARMOHINDER SINGH WAS UNDER THE STAY OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIM ACHAL PRADESH. THE RE-DETERMINATED AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION I.E. RS.2,12 ,18,382/- WAS IN THE CUSTODY OF REGISTRAR OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. TH E PLEA BEFORE THE COURT BY TIKKA BRIJENDER SINGH, LEGAL HEIR OF RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH WAS THAT TILL THE DATE OF FINAL DECISION BY THE COU RT NOBODY COULD CLAIM HIMSELF TO BE LEGAL HEIR OR REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH AND NO RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY LEFT BY RAJA HARMOHIND ER SINGH. 14. IN THE TWO APPEALS I.E. RFA NO.271 OF 2003 AND RFA NO.310 OF 2003, THE PARTIES CLAIMING TO THE LEGAL HEIRS OF RA JA HARMOHINDER SINGH STATED TO HAVE SETTLED THE DISPUTE AMICABLY OUTSIDE THE COURT THEMSELVES. FURTHER THE PARTIES HAD NO OBJECTION THAT THE SUIT WAS FULLY DECREED IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT IN RFA NO.310 OF 2003 I.E. TIKKA BRIJENDER SINGH. FURTHER IN THE SAID SUIT FILED BE TWEEN THE LEGAL HEIRS OF RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH THREE PERSONS I.E. SHRI BALI RAM, SMT.SNEH LATA SHARMA AND SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA HAD MADE APPLICAT ION FOR BECOMING PARTIES FOR THEIR CLAIM FOR ASSIGNMENT/SALE OF 47% SHARE OF RE-DETERMINED COMPENSATION AMOUNT IN FAVOUR OF THEM BY RAJA HARMO HINDER SINGH. IT IS NOTED IN THE SAID JUDGMENT THAT TIKKA BRIJENDER SINGH CONCEDED THE FACT THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS NOT CO-PARCENARY PR OPERTY BUT WAS SELF ACQUIRED PROPERTY OF RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH. THE H ON'BLE COURT IN VIEW THEREOF HELD THAT THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE TREAT ED AS SELF ACQUIRED PROPERTY OF RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH, VIDE JUDGMENT D ATED 25.7.2006. 15. THE OTHER ISSUE INVOLVED FOR CONSIDERATION IN R FA NO.271 OF 2003 WAS THE CLAIM OF SHRI AJAY SINGH TO BE THE SON OF R AJA HARMOHINDER SINGH WAS HELD TO BE NOT CORRECT AND AFFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT SHRI AJAY S INGH HAD NO RIGHT OR TITLE TO THE ASSETS OF RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH. THE SECOND ISSUE DECIDED 10 IN RFA NO.271 OF 2003 WAS THAT THREE PERSONS WERE E NTITLED TO 47% SHARE OF RE-DETERMINED COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 2 8A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. IT WAS THUS HELD THAT THE PLAINTI FF IN RFA NO.310 OF 2003 I.E. TIKKA BRIJENDER SINGH, ALONE TO THE EXCLU SION OF THREE PERSONS WAS ENTITLED TO SUCCEED TO THE ESTATE OF RAJA HARMO HINDER SINGH, BY WAY OF SUCCESSION. THE THREE PURCHASERS WERE ENTITLED TO 47% SHARE IN RE- DETERMINED COMPENSATION AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 28A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT WAS UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COUR T. IT WAS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF 4 7% SHARE OF RE- DETERMINED COMPENSATION SHALL BE RELEASED IN THEIR FAVOUR. 16. THE COURT FURTHER NOTED AS UNDER: IN RFA NO. 310 OF 2003 INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT, BEING CMP NO. 145 OF 2005. THEREAF TER IT FILED A SECOND APPLICATION, BEING CMP NO. 372 OF 2005 FOR AMENDMEN T OF THE AFORESAID EARLIER APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX LIAB ILITY OF RAJA HARMOHINDRA SINGH HAS BEEN REDUCED IN APPEAL FROM RS. TWO CRORE S TO RS. TWELVE LACS. REPLY TO THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE APP ELLANT IN WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS DISPUTED HIS TAX LIABILITY. BECAUSE O F THE PENDING LITIGATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES AND THE FACT THAT THE TAX LIABILITY OF RAJA HARMOHINDRA SINGH HAS BEEN DISPUTED , I AM NOT INCLINED TO PASS ANY ORDER ON THE AFORESAID APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE. THE A PPLICATION ACCORDINGLY IS DISMISSED. HOWEVER, THE REVENUE IS AT LIBERTY TO TAKE SUCH STEPS FOR RECOVERY OF TAX DUE AS ARE AVAILABLE TO I T UNDER THE LAW.(UNDERLINE PROVIDED BY US) 17. THE SAID JUDGMENT IN RFA NO.271 OF 2003 AND RFA NO.310 OF 2003 WAS PASSED ON 25.7.2006 UNDER WHICH THE STATUS OF THE ASSETS OF RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH I.E. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WERE HELD TO BE HIS SELF ACQUIRED ASSET AND NOT PART OF THE HUF. FURTH ER IT WAS ALSO DECREED VIDE SAID JUDGMENT THAT 47% SHARE OF REDETERMINED C OMPENSATION AWARDED UNDER THE LAC ACT DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASS ESSEE BUT WAS TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE THREE CLAIMANTS TO WHOM THE ASSE SSEE HAD SOLD HIS RIGHTS. THE ISSUE OF CONTRADICTORY CLAIMS OF LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO FINALLY DECIDED BY THE COURT VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 25.7.2006. 11 18. WHILE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SHRI BRIJENDER SINGH, SON OF RAJ A HARMOHINDER SINGH FILED A CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1251/2005 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA AGAINST THE ACIT, PAL AMPUR RANGE, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH AND CHIEF COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX, HIMACHAL PRADESH FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE W RIT OR DIRECTIONS. THE PETITIONER POINTED OUT THAT HIS FATHER RAJA HAR MOHINDER SINGH I.E. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, WAS THE KARTA OF JOINT HIN DU FAMILY AND IT RECEIVED DIFFERENT AWARDS UNDER SECTION 11 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND CERTAIN AWARDS WERE RECEIVED BY SMT.SURAJ DEVI, AS POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER. IT WAS FURTHER PLEADED BY THE PETITIONER S HRI BRIJENDER SINGH THAT THE AWARD/COMPENSATION OF HUF PROPERTY WERE RE FLECTED IN THE RETURNS FILED BY RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH I.E. WITH T HE WEALTH TAX AND INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES AND THOUGH THE NATURE OF PRO PERTIES WERE CORRECTLY DESCRIBED AS HUF IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS, BUT RAJ A HARMOHINDER SINGH HAD SHOWN ONE SURAJ DEVI AS HIS WIFE AND TIKKA VIJA Y SINGH AS HIS SON AND AS MEMBERS OF HUF. 19. IN THE SAID WRIT PETITION, IT WAS POINTED OUT B Y TIKKA BRIJENDER SINGH THAT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS C ONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE ADJ, KANGRA. FURTHER REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BY RAISING DEMAND AND ATTACHMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR THE RECOVERY O F THE SAID DEMAND AND ITS SALE. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT ON T HE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER BY THE CIT (APPEALS) NO DEMAND EXISTED AGAINS T RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH AND MONEY WAS ILLEGALLY HELD BY THE RESPONDEN T I.E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 20 OF THE SAID WRIT PETITION. TI KKA BRIJENDER SINGH ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ON 17.1.2000 THE CWT (APPEALS) HA D SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ON 28.5.1997 AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED ON 20.4.2 004 AND ON 19.5.2005 I.E. ON THE DATE OF FILING THE WRIT PETIT ION, THERE WAS NO 12 ASSESSMENT ORDER AGAINST ANY OF THE PETITIONERS UND ER BOTH THE INCOME TAX ACT AND WEALTH TAX ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION. THE COPIES OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNA L DATED 20.4.2004 AND 19.5.2005 WERE ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE P-9 AND P-10 TO THE WRIT PETITION VIDE PARA 21. IT WAS ADMITTED THAT PURSUANT TO THE DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY THE TRIBUNAL FRESH PROCEEDINGS BOTH UNDER THE INCOM E TAX ACT AND WEALTH TAX ACT AGAINST LATE RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH HAD STARTED AS PER LETTER OF ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 7.7.2005. IN THE SAID WRIT PETITION VIDE PARA 22 IT HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ON 27.10.2005 , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICE FOR FINALIZATION OF THE A SSESSMENT UNDER THE WEALTH TAX AS WELL AS INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEARS 1971-72 TO 1979-80 UNDER WEALTH TAX ACT AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1973-74 TO 1979-80 UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, TO THE PETITIONER , DECLARING HIM AS THE ONLY LEGAL HEIR OF HIS FATHER AND DECLARING THE STATUS OF HIS FATHER AS HUF. VIDE PARA 23 OF THE SAID PETITION IT WAS POIN TED OUT THAT THE STATUS OF THE FATHER OF TIKKA BRIJENDER SINGH WAS QUESTION ED VIDE CIVIL SUIT AND AGAINST WHICH APPEALS WERE PENDING BEFORE THE HON'B LE HIGH COURT AND MATTER BEING FRUCTUOUS RELATING TO THE STATUS OF TH E FATHER I.E. RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH, HOLDING THE PROPERTY IN THE CAPA CITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL OR AS KARTA OF HUF, THE ISSUE OF NOTICE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WITHOUT FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE STATUS WOULD AGAIN RENDE R INTO MULTIPLICITY OF LITIGATION. IT WAS THUS PRAYED THAT TILL THE FINAL STATUS OF LATE RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH IS DECIDED THE MATTER RELATING AS SESSMENT AS PROPOSED SHALL NOT BE CARRIED FORWARD . THE PETITIONER FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE AGAINST THE PETITION ER ON 7.7.2005 WHEN THE JOINT CIT, INCOME TAX, PALAMPUR RANGE, ISSUED A LETTER TO START FRESH SCRUTINY AGAINST LATE RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH FOR DI FFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS OF INCOME TAX AND WEALTH TAX AND THEREAFTER O N 27.10.2005, WHEN THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED FOR FINALIZATION OF THE ASS ESSMENT UNDER BOTH THE WEALTH TAX ACT AND INCOME TAX ACT TO THE PETITIONER DECLARING HIM AS ONLY HEIR OF HIS FATHER. THE SAID PLEADINGS ARE IN PARA 24 OF THE WRIT 13 PETITION. VIDE PARA 29 THE PRAYER CLAUSE WAS TO PA SS APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND AS PER CLAUSE (B) DIRECTIONS WERE REQUESTED TO BE ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT I.E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CHIEF CIT NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE ASSESSMENT TILL THE STATUS OF T HE PETITIONER WAS FINALLY DECIDED BY THE COMPETENT COURT OF LAW. 20. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID CIVIL PETIT ION NO.1251/2005 PASSED AN INTERIM STAY ORDER DATED 1.12.2005 VIDE W HICH THE RESPONDENT I.E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CHIEF CIT, PALAMPUR WERE DIRECTED THAT TILL FURTHER ORDER, THE RESPONDENTS SHALL NOT TAKE DECISION ON THE NOTICES ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER . THE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS PLACED AT PAGE 27 OF THE PAPER BOOK-I. 21. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THROUGH THE ACIT FILE D AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH I N CWP NO.1251 OF 2005 UNDER WHICH IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) ON 17.1.2000, THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS WILL BECOME TIME BARRED ON 31.3.2006. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEA RS 1973-74 TO 1979- 80 UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT IN THE INDIVIDUAL STATU S OF RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH WERE PENDING AND ALSO IN THE STAT US OF HUF WERE PENDING. SIMILARLY, PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT FOR VARIOUS YEARS, BOTH IN THE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL AND HUF. IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE SAID APPLICATION THAT AS THE ORIGI NAL ASSESSEE I.E. RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH HAD EXPIRED, THE PROCEEDINGS HAD TO BE COMPLETED AFTER HEARING HIS LEGAL HEIRS. IT WAS ALSO MENTION ED THAT THE HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE LITIGATING AMONG THEMSELVES FOR BEING ACCORDED THE STATUS OF HIS LEGAL HEIRS, WHICH DISPUTE WAS SUBJECT MATTE R OF RFA NOS.271 & 310 OF 2003, WHICH WAS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE H IGH COURT. THE APPLICATION WAS THUS MADE BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT TO VACATE THE ORDER DATED 1.12.2005 UNDER WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS B EFORE IT WERE STAYED. AN ALTERNATE PRAYER WAS MADE THAT IN CASE THE INTERIM ORDER 14 DATED 1.12.2005 IS NOT VACATED OR MODIFIED, THE INT ERVENING PERIOD SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR COMPLETING OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE SAI D PETITION IS PLACED AT PAGES 28 TO 32 OF THE PAPER BOOK-II. ANOTHER IN TERIM ORDER DATED 8.3.2006 WAS PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AGAIN ST THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT UNDER WHICH THE INT ERIM ORDER DATED 1.12.2005 WAS MODIFIED, AS IT IS DIRECTED THAT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE RESPONDENT IN REGARD TO ASSESSMENT OF RAJA HARM OHINDER SINGH SHALL REMAINED STAYED, TILL WHICH TIME THE STATUS OF THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE/S IS DECIDED . THE SAID INTERIM ORDER WAS VACATED ON 11.12.2006 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OBSERVING AS UNDER: IN THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION, THE MAIN DISPUTE WA S WITH REGARD TO THE STATUS OF THE LEGAL REPRESENTATI VES OF RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH FATHER OF THE PETITIONER WHI CH WAS TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON IN RFA NO.271/2003 AND RFA NO.310/2003. ADMITTEDLY, THESE TWO APPEALS HAV E BEEN DECIDED AND THE STATUS OF THE PARTIES HAS ALSO BEEN DECIDED BY THIS COURT. WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IS PENDING BEFORE THE APEX COURT. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS THE WRIT PETITION HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. INTERIM ORDER IS VACATED AND ALL THE PENDING APPLICATIONS ARE DISMISSED IN VIEW OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE WRIT PETITION. 22. THE ABOVE SAID ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN CWP NO.1251 OF 2005 IS PLACED AT PAGES 34 AND 35 OF THE PAPER BOOK . 23. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO THE SAID DIREC TIONS WAS PASSED ON 8.2.2007. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS POINTED OUT THERE WAS DISPUTE BETWEEN DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY VIS--VIS T HE STATUS OF BEING LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH AND ALSO WHERE THE STATUS OF 15 THE ASSETS BELONGING TO ASSESSEE WERE DISPUTED AND COURT PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT TO ADJUD ICATE THE CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF VARIOUS LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEE AND A LSO WHETHER THE ASSETS WERE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL STATUS OR IN HIS HUF STATUS. THE ISSUE WAS FIRST ADJUDICATED BY THE ADJ VIDE ORD ER DATED 1.9.2003, WHICH WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT VIDE RFA NOS.271 & 310 OF 2003. THE SAID SUIT WAS DECREED BY THE HO N'BLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 25.7.2006 UNDER WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: A) THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TIKKA BRIJEN DER SINGH B) THE ASSETS WERE HELD IN THE INDIVIDUAL STATUS O F THE ASSESSEE. C) THE COMPENSATION TO THE EXTENT OF 47% AWARDED B Y THE LAC WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO THREE PERSONS AND THE SUIT AMOUNT HAD TO BE RELEASED TO THE SAID PERSONS. 24. WHILE THE CIVIL SUIT BETWEEN THE PARTIES REGARD ING STATUS OF LEGAL HEIRS AND ASSETS OF ASSESSEE WAS PENDING, THE LEGAL HEIR TIKKA BRIJENDER SINGH HAD FILED CIVIL WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HON' BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH BEING CWP NO.1251 OF 2005 IN WHICH THE INTERIM ORDER STAYING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT WERE PASSED. IN ALL THE PROCEEDINGS I.E. IN THE SUIT BETWEEN THE PARTIE S AND THE CIVIL WRIT PETITION, THE REVENUE HAD MADE ITS STAND CLEAR THAT THERE WAS A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS TO WHO WERE THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE STATUS OF THE ASSETS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE SAID DISPUTE WAS BECAUSE OF VARYING CLAIMS MADE BY DIFFERENT PERSONS , CLAIMING TO BE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ABOVE SAID DISPU TES WERE SETTLED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 25.7.2006 PURSU ANT TO WHICH THE INTERIM STAY ORDER IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION WAS VACAT ED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BETWEEN THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED THEREAFTE R. THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED PURSUANT TO T HE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DETERMINING BOTH THE LEGA L HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE STATUS OF ASSETS OWNED BY THE ASSE SSEE. 16 25. SECTION 17A OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT AND SECTION 1 53 OF INCOME TAX ACT PROVIDES TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMEN T AND RE-ASSESSMENT. THE TWO PROVISIONS UNDER DIFFERENT ACTS ARE IDENTIC AL. HOWEVER, REFERENE IS BEING MADE TO THE PROVISIONS UNDER THE INCOME ACT. SECTION 153(1) TALKS OF TIME LIMIT OF PASSING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143 OR 144 OF THE ACT, SUB-SECTION (1A) TAL KS OF TIME LIMIT OF PASSING ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 115WE OR SECTION 115 WF AND SUB-SECTION (1B) OF ASSESSMENT OR RE-ASSESSMENT UND ER SECTION 115 WG AND SUB-SECTION (2) OF ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, RE-ASSE SSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION TO BE MADE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE A CT. SUB-SECTION (2A) PROVIDES THE TIME LIMIT FOR FRAMING THE FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 250/254/263/264 CANCELING THE ASSESSM ENT. VARIOUS TIME PERIODS HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN FOR COMPLETING SUCH ASS ESSMENTS AND AS PER THE PROVISO WHERE SUCH ORDERS UNDER SECTION 250/254 OF THE ACT ARE RECEIVED BY CIT OR PASSED BY CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OR 264 OF THE ACT, ON OR AFTER 1.4.1999 BUT BEFORE 1.4.2000, SUCH ORDE R OF FRESH ASSESSMENT IS TO BE MADE UPTO 31.3.20002. THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE IS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED ON 17.1.2000 WAS RECEIVED BY THE CIT ON 14.2.2000 AND HENCE THE TIME LIMIT TO FRAME ASSESSMENT EXPIRES ON 31.3.2002. HOWEVER, SUB-SECTION (3) TO SECTION 153 PROVIDES AS UNDER: 153(3) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS (1 [, (1A), (1B)] AND (2) SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE FOLLOWING CLASSES OF ASSESSMENTS, REAS SESSMENTS AND RECOMPUTATIONS WHICH MAY, [SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION S OF SUB-SECTION (2A),] BE COMPLETED AT ANY TIME (I) [***] (II) WHERE THE ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPU TATION IS MADE ON THE ASSESSEE OR ANY PERSON IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 , 254 , 260 , 262 , 263 , OR 264 [OR IN AN ORDER OF ANY COURT IN A PROCEEDING OTHERWISE THAN BY WAY OF APPEAL OR REFERENCE UNDER THIS ACT] ; (III) WHERE, IN THE CASE OF A FIRM, AN ASSESSMENT IS MADE ON A PARTNER OF THE FIRM IN CONSEQUENCE OF AN ASSESSMENT MADE ON THE FI RM UNDER SECTION 147 . 17 26. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17A(4) OF WEALT H TAX ACT/153(3)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, TIME LIMIT FO R COMPLETION OF OTHER CLASSES OF ASSESSMENT OR RE-ASSESSMENT IS PROVIDED. IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED UNDER THE SAID SECTION 153(3)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT/RE-ASSESSMENT OR RE-COMPUTATION CAN BE C OMPLETED AT ANY TIME, WHERE THE SAME IS MADE ON THE ASSESSEE OR ON ANY PERSON IN CONSEQUENT OF ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO, ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN ANY ORDER UNDER SECTION 250/254/260/262/263/264 OR IN AN ORDER OF ANY COURT, IN A PROCEEDING OTHERWISE THAN BY WAY OF AN APPEAL OR REFERENCE UNDER THIS ACT. THE SAID PROVISIONS ARE SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(3)(2A), WHICH HAS LIMITED APPLICATIO N AND GOVERNS FRESH ASSESSMENT TO BE MADE PURSUANT TO ORDER PASSED UNDE R SECTION 250/254/263/264 OF THE ACT AND NOT TO IN AN ORDER OF ANY COURT IN A PROCEEDING OTHERWISIE THAN BY WAY OF APPEAL OR REFE RENCE UNDER THIS ACT . THE SAID PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17A(4) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT ARE IDENTICAL TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(3)OF THE INC OME TAX ACT. 27. APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE HAS BEEN M ADE ON LEGAL HEIR OF LATE ASSESSEE WHO WAS DECLARED TO BE THE ONLY LEGAL HEIR BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT PURSUANT TO DISPUTE BETWEEN DIFFERENT PA RTIES CLAIMING TO BE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER ASSESSMENT HA S BEEN FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN RFA NO.310 OF 2003 THAT THE PROPERTIES OWN ED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL STATUS A ND NOT IN HIS HUF STATUS. THE SAID ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT GIVING EFFEC T TO THE ORDERS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AS DIRECTED, UNDER SECTION 17A(4 ) OF WEALTH TAX ACT/153(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CAN BE PASSED AT A NY TIME AND THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1), (1A), (1B) AND (2) OF THE SAID SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY. CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS COMPLETED IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME FRAME. 18 28. IN ANY CASE, TILL THE CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF LEG AL HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PENDING ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE COURTS , THE ISSUE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE SAID LEGAL HEIRS IS OPEN TO DEBATE AND THE PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE THUS CONCLUDED. THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED AFTER THE ORDER OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT THUS ARE WITHIN LIMITAT ION. FURTHER CLAIMS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAD TO B E COMPLETED BY 31.3.2002 OR 31.3.2006 ARE THUS NOT CORRECT AND HEN CE DISMISSED. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 29. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND AS REFERRE D TO BY US IN PARAS HEREINABOVE, THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSE D PURSUANT TO THE VACATION OF STAY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN CWP NO.1251 OF 2005, IN WHICH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 27.10.2005 FOR FINALIZATION OF THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO VARIOUS YEARS UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT AND INCOME TAX ACT WAS CHALLENGED. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE MADE EXTENSIVE PLEADINGS BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CIVIL WRIT PETITION B UT HOWEVER, NO ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF THE SAID NOTICE OF HEARING ISSUED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE NOTICE BEING TIME BARRED WAS EVER RAISED BEF ORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CONCESSION FROM T HE HON'BLE HIGH COURT UNDER WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS WERE STAYED BEFOR E THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND NOW THE SAID NOTICE IS BEING CHALLEN GED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL THAT THE ASSE SSMENT HAS BECOME TIME BARRED. IN VIEW OF THE PLEADINGS OF THE ASSES SEE IN NOT CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE SAID NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE T HE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT APPOSITE STAND TAKE N BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL. A CCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DEVOID OF MERIT AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 30. NOW COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION MADE I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE IS REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS 19 LEGAL HEIR TIKKA BRIJENDER SINGH. THE ASSESSMENT H AS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL AND THE ASSETS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID STATUS ARE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENT NOTED THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE WHETHER THE ESTATE AND THE INCOME AROSE F ROM THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OF LATE RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH OR HUF JOIN T FAMILY PROPERTY HAD ALREADY BEEN FINALLY AND CONCLUSIVELY DECIDED B Y THE COMPETENT CIVIL COURT AND THIS ORDER HAD ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. IT WAS HELD THAT THE INCOME AND PROPERTY OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS HIS INDIVIDUAL AND ABSOLUTE PROPERTY AND ASSESSMENTS IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME AND WEALTH HAD TO BE MADE UNDER THE INDIVIDU AL STATUS. THE SAID STATUS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQ UENTLY THE ASSETS ARE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 31. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL T HE CAPTIONED APPEALS IS IN RELATION TO THE VALUATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAN D IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE OWNED 60 ACRES OF AGRICULTU RAL LAND AND IN ALL THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEARS THE VALUE OF THE LAND HA D BEEN DECLARED AT RS.60,000/- ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, HOWEVER, ENHANCED THE VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AGAIN ON ES TIMATE BASIS, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (APPEALS). THE TABULATED DETAILS OF THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND VALUE ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE AS UNDER: ASST. YEAR VALUE DECLARED VALUE ASSESSED BY ASSESSEE 1971-72 60,000/- 150,000/- 1972-73 60,000/- 150,000/- 1973-74 150,000/- 1974-75 240,000/- 1975-76 240,000/- 1976-77 240,000/- 1977-78 240,000/- 1978-79 250,000/- 1979-80 250,000/- 32. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITT ED THAT BOTH THE VALUES ARE ESTIMATED VALUES AND ARE NOT BASED ON AN Y VALUATION REPORT. 20 33. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANC E ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 34. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN MIND THE NUMBER OF ASSESSMENT YEARS INVO LVED RELATING BACK TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1971-72, THOUGH IT IS NOT DESIRA BLE TO ESTIMATE THE VALUE OF THE SAID AGRICULTURAL, BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS BEING FILED EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE REVENUE, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO ESTIMATE THE VALUE OF THE SAID ASSETS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADO PT THE VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1971 -72 TO 1973-74 AT THE DECLARED VALUE OF RS.60,000/- AND THEREAFTER FROM A SSESSMENT YEARS 1974-75 TO 1976-77 AT RS.90,000/- AND IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1977-78 TO 1979-80 AT RS.1 LAC. THE GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1971-72 TO 1973-74 IS ALLOWED A ND IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1974-75 TO 1979-80 IS THUS PARTLY ALLOWED. 35. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS IS I N RELATION TO THE ADDITION OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT AWARDED UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT FOR ACQUISITION OF THE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOTED THAT THE TAXABLE WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDED THE ASSETS IN THE FORM OF ASSETS CREATED OUT OF MONEY COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BIAS DAM PROJECT, TALWARA. THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE PONG DAM PROJE CT AND SEVERAL COMPENSATION AWARDS WERE MADE BY THE LAO. THUS COM PENSATION AMOUNT WAS DETERMINED AND PAID AND INTEREST WAS ALS O PAID FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF LAND AND THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF THE COMPENSATION. FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF THE AWARD AND CONSEQUENT INTEREST ACCRUAL WERE ALSO AWARDED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT PART OF SUCH AMOUNT WAS INVESTED IN FIXED DEPOSIT S AND INTEREST ALSO ACCRUED FROM THESE DEPOSITS . THE CONTENTION OF THE 21 ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF FDRS AND OTHER DEPOSITS WAS THAT HIS SECOND WIFE SMT.SURAJ DEVI WHO WAS HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND HER SON TIKKA VIJAY SINGH HAD MISAPPROPRIATED AND EMBEZZLED ALL T HE MONIES RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF COMPENSATION AG AINST LAND ACQUISITION AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE MA DE IN THEIR HANDS AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NEXT CONTENT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT OUT OF THE MONEY RECEIVED BY WAY OF COMPENSATION AGAINST ACQUISITION OF LAND, FIXED DEPOSITS AND SAV ING BANK DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN THE NAMES OF RANI SURAJ DEVI AND HER SON TI KKA VIJAY SINGH. SUCH MONEY WAS NOT PUT INTO ANY HUF ACCOUNT TO BE J OINTLY OPERATED WITH RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH. RATHER, BOTH RANI SUR AJ DEVI AND TIKKA VIJAY SINGH UTILIZED SUCH AMOUNT THEMSELVES. THERE FORE, ASSETS IN THE FORM OF SUCH MONEY SHOULD NOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE FIXED DEPOSITS HELD BY THE ASSESSE E EITHER IN HIS NAME OR IN THE NAME OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ARE TO BE INCL UDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PART OF HIS NET WEALTH AS NO EVIDEN CE HAD BEEN FILED OF HAVING DISPOSED OFF THE ASSETS. WE FIND NO MERIT I N THE ALTERNATE PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD. THE SAID ISSUE OF INCLUDIBILITY OF FDRS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RAISED VIDE GROUND NO.2 IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1974-75 TO 1977-78 AND CONSEQUENTLY GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD I S DISMISSED. 36. THE OTHER MOVABLE ASSETS INCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE VALUE OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT AWARDED UNDER THE LAC ACT TILL THE VALUATION DATE OF RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS AGAIN ST ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, EXCLUDING THE VALUE OF FDRS, TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US HAD FURNISHED ON RECORD THE LIST OF TOTAL AGGREGATE AMOUNT AWARDED UP TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1980-81 I.E. BOTH THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DETAILS ARE AS UNDER: 22 ASST. YEAR TOTAL COMPENSATION FDRS & ADDITION AWARDED UNDER LAC ACT . OTHER DEPOSITS ON ACCOUNT COMPENSATION 1971-72 2,59439/- -- 259,439/- 1972-73 35,54,586/- -- 35,54,586/- 1973-74 68,05,517/- -- 68,05,517/- 1974-75 71,43,699/- 2309,234/- 48,34,465/- 1975-76 73,50,468/- 1931,414/- 54,19,054/- 1976-77 73,50,468/- 2096,829/- 52,53,639/- 1977-78 75,06,089/- 18,71,880/- 56,34,209/- 1978-79 75,06,089/- -- 75,06,089/- 1979-80 86,,29,309/- -- 86,29,309/- 37. THE ISSUE WHICH HAS ARISEN VIDE GROUND NO.2/3 I N THE CAPTIONED APPEALS IS AGAINST THE INCLUSION OF SAID COMPENSATI ON AMOUNT AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSET OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER S ECTION 3 OF THE ACT THE CHARGE OF WEALTH TAX ACT IS TO BE MADE ON THE NET W EALTH OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE CORRESPONDING VALUATION DATE AT THE RATE OR RATES SPECIFIED IN SCHEDULE-I. THE TERM NET WEALTH IS DEFINED UNDER S ECTION (2)(M) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT AND INCLUDES AGGREGATE VALUE OF THE ASSET WHEREVER LOCATED AS ON THE VALUATION DATE, IN EXCESS OF AGGR EGATE VALUE OF LIABILITIES OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE VALUATION. THE ASSET TO BE INCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DEFINED U NDER SECTION 2(E)(II) OF THE ACT AND IS INCLUSIVE DEFINITION ON INCLUDING PROPERTY OF EVERY DESCRIPTION BOTH THE MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRE SENT APPEALS IS THE CHARGEABILITY OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT RECEIVED I N RESPECTIVE YEARS AS ASSET ON THE VALUATION DATE. ADMITTEDLY, THE COMPE NSATION AMOUNT AND INTEREST THEREON HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THERE ARE ALSO ALLEGATIONS BY LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEE AND OTHE R PERSONS OF HAVING SPENT THE SAID AMOUNTS. THUS IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS HELD B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF ANY ASSET WHATSOEVER, CHARGEABLE TO TAX UND ER WEALTH TAX ACT, MERELY BECAUSE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT HAS BEEN AWA RDED AND PAID TO THE ASSESSEE, DOES NOT WARRANT INCLUSION OF SAID AM OUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE WEALTH TAX OFFICER WHEREIN VARIOUS SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE LATE ASSESSEE IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN POINTED O UT THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS HAVE 23 BEEN SPENT AWAY AND NOTHING IS AVAILABLE WITH THE A SSESSEE AS ON THE CLOSE OF THE VALUATION DATE HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO. THE ASSETS ACQUIRED IN THE SHAPE OF BANK FDRS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY US IN T HE PARAS HEREINABOVE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1974-75 TO 1977-78. MERELY BEC AUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE COMPENSATION FROM THE LAC UPTO THE CLOSE OF YEAR DOES NOT MAKE THE SAID ASSETS INCLUDIBLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPUTING THE NET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE UNLESS THE SAME IS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IN SOME FORM, ON THE RESPECTIVE VALUATION DATE. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AWARDED UP TO THE VALUATION DATE AS THE ASSET LIABLE TO WEALTH-TAX, IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT T O INCLUDE THE VALUE OF COMPENSATION AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE I.E. PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THE VALUATION DATE, AS AN ASSET CHARGEABLE TO WEALTH TA X. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO INCLUDE THE VALUE OF FDRS HELD BY SMT.SURAJ DEVI AND SHRI VIJAY SINGH IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1973-74 TO 1979-80 IN LINE WITH TH E INCLUSION OF FDR INTEREST INCLUDED IN THE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ORDE RS PASSED FOR THE SAID YEARS. GROUND NO.2/3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE CAPTIONED APPEALS IS THUS PARTLY ALLOWED. 38. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE NINE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NOS.296 TO 303 /CHD/2010 : ASSESSMENT YEARS 197 3-74 TO 1980-81 39. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPE AL IN ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.296/CHD/2010 READ AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A) ON 18.1.2010 IS VOID ABINITIO WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL A S NO FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY CIT(A) BUT ONLY 24 ARGUMENTS/FINDINGS OF THE A.O. HAVE BEEN RE-PRODUCE D ON THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:- A) WHETHER INTEREST EARNED ON FDRS HELD IN THE NAME O F SMT.SURAJ DEVI AMOLUNTING TO RS.70,754/- IS TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. B) WHETHER AMOUNT OF INTEREST ON COMPENSATION AMOUNTING TO RS.4,45,716/- IS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT COMPLETELY IGNORING THE FACT THA T THE MONEY WAS NOT TRANSFERRED BY THE APPELLANT TO H IS WIFE BUT HAS BEEN FRAUDULENTLY WITHDRAWN BY HER AND HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 64 ARE NOT APPLICA BLE UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DECID ING THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL WHEREBY THE APPELLANT HAS DISPUTED THE ADDITION OF RS.4,45,716/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTERES T ON COMPENSATION OF LAND ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER O F A.O. IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER RS.4,45,716/- IS 47% OF THE TOTAL INT EREST OR 100% BECAUSE THE VARIOUS COURTS HAVE HELD THAT 53% SHARE OF THE TOTAL LAND DOES NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT AND ALSO THAT THE AMOUNT OF 47% HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT BUT H AS BEEN FRAUDULENTLY WITHDRAWN BY SMT.SURAJ DEVI. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT DISPUTES THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 139 (8) AND U/S 217 UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 40. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS HAD ALSO RA ISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT BEING BARR ED BY LIMITATION. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT APPEALS IN ITA NOS.296 TO 303/CHD/2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1973-74 T O 1980-81 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN WTA NOS .5 TO 13/CHD/2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1971-72 TO 1979-80. F OLLOWING OUR DECISION IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE FIRST WE ADMIT THE ADDITIO N GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ALSO DISMISS THE SAME. 41. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS HAS RAISED TWO ISSUES I.E. FIRST ISSUE RAISED IS INCLUSION OF INTEREST EARNED ON FDR S HELD IN THE NAMES OF 25 SMT.SURAJ DEVI AND SHRI VIJAY SINGH SECOND ISSUE BE ING THE ASSESSABILITY OF THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON THE COMPENSATION OF LAN D RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 42. THE FIRST ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS IS THE TAXABILITY OF INTEREST INCOME ON FDRS HELD IN THE N AME OF SMT.SURAJ DEVI AND/OR SHRI VIJAY SINGH. THE CONTENTION OF TH E LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AWARDED B Y THE LAC IN THE ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS MISAPPROPRIATE D/EMBEZZLED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT.SURAJ DEVI, WIFE OF TH E ASSESSEE. PART OF THE SAID PROCEEDS WERE BEING HELD IN THE SHAPE OF F DRS BY SMT.SURAJ DEVI AND HER SON SHRI VIJAY SINGH. WHILE ADJUDICAT ING THE WEALTH TAX APPEALS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WE HAVE DIRECTE D THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INCLUDE THE VALUE OF FDRS HELD BY SMT.SU RAJ DEVI AND SHRI VIJAY SINGH IN THE WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQU ENTLY, THE INTEREST EARNED ON SUCH FDRS IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID FUNDS HAVE BEEN MISAPPROPRIATED BY THE SAID FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE SAME. THE SAID ASSETS WHETHER STA NDING IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND/OR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE INCOME ARISING ON SUCH ASSET IS TO BE INCLUDED IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YE ARS. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW DISPOSITION OF T HE SAID ASSETS IN FAVOUR OF SUCH LEGAL HEIRS. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IN INCLUDING THE INTERES T INCOME EARNED ON FIXED DEPOSIT HELD IN THE NAME OF SMT.SURAJ DEVI AN D SHRI VIJAY SINGH AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMEN T YEARS. THE GROUND NO.1(A) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS DISMISSED. 43. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS IS IN RELATION TO THE INCLUSION OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AWARDED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY THE A SSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, 26 THE SAID INTEREST INCOME IS INCLUDIBLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THE QUANTUM OF I NTEREST INCOME TO BE INCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS POIN TED OUT BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT LAC WHILE AWARDING COMPE NSATION TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HAD HE LD THE ASSESSEE TO BE ENTITLED TO ONLY 47% SHARE IN THE COMPENSATION AND THUS INTEREST INCOME ON THE SAID 47% SHARE IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE. 44. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIAN CE ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS). 45. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE LAO IN THE CASE NO.944/18693/25376, DATED OF DECISION 20.12.93 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: THE APPORTIONMENT:- THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KANGRA AT DHARMSHALA IN CMA NO.186 OF 1987 D ECLARED ON 18.6.88 HAS MADE APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION BETW EEN VARIOUS PERSONS WHO WOULD HAVE A CLAIM ON THE LAND ACQUIRED . THE APPORTIONMENT HAS BEEN MADE AS UNDER: 1.(A) RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH 47% (B) KR. RAJBINDER SINGH 5% (C) RANI JASRATI 13% 2. BARTANDARS 5% 3. GRAZIERS (A) SADHU 4% (B) MAHANTAT 11% (C) REMAINING GRAZIERS 5% THE APPORTIONMENT WILL THUS BE MADE AS UNDER:- 1. RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH VENDOR AND SHRI BALI RAM S/O ANANT RAM R/O BARSOL TEHSIL BAROH, VENDES.47% 10867962.65 2. KR. RAJBINDER SINGH 15% 3468498.75 3. RANI JASRATI 13% 3006032.25 4. BARTANDARS 1156166.25 5. GRAZIERS 4624665.00 TOTAL:- 23123325.00 27 46. FURTHER THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN RFA NOS.271 & 310 OF 2003 VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 25.7.2006, WHILE DECIDING THE D ISPUTE AMONGST VARIOUS LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO HELD T HAT 47% SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE REDETERMINED COMPENSATION UNDER SEC TION 28A OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT HAS BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO SH RI BALI RAM SHARMA, SMT.SNEH LATA SHARMA AND SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA WHO WERE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE 47% SHARE IN THE REDETERMINED COMPENSATION AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXECUTED THE SALE DEED ON 12.10.1993 I N FAVOUR OF THREE PERSONS IN RESPECT OF HIS 47% SHARE IN THE SAID RED ETERMINED COMPENSATION AWARD TO BE PASSED. IN THE ENTIRETY O F THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ONLY 47% SHARE IN THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT IN THE IMPUGNED AS SESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 1973-74 TO 1980-81, THE INTEREST P AID ON THE SAID COMPENSATION AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE ON EACH VALUAT ION DATE IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT TO 47% SHARE ONLY. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED T HAT THE INTEREST ON SUCH COMPENSATION AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF 47% SHARE IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT C LEAR WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INCLUDED 47% SHARE IN THE INT EREST AWARDED FOR EACH FINANCIAL YEAR IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE OR 100% OF THE INTEREST AWARDED ON COMPENSATION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E. ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF DETERMINING 47% SHARE IN THE INTEREST ON COMPENSATION AWARDED, TO BE INCLUDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE F OR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL AFFO RD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW TH EREOF, GROUND NO.1(B) AND GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 47. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ADDRESS GROUND NO.3 AND HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 28 48. THUS, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTL Y ALLOWED. WTA NOS.14 TO 16 /CHD/2010: ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 TO 1996-97 49. THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS HAS RAISE D COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT LEARNED CWT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.2,12,18,380/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMPENS ATION UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE COMPLET ELY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE OWN ER OF THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION. 2. THAT LEARNED CWT (APPEALS) HAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF A.O. IGNORING THAT THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION OF LAND IS NOT TAXABLE WEALTH UNDER W. T. ACT 1957. 50. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT T HAT NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT IS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE SAID REDETERMINED COMPENSATION AMOU NT BELONGS TO THREE PERSONS WHO HAD PURCHASED THE SAME FROM THE ASSESSE E. FURTHER CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION OF LAND WAS NOT TAXABLE WEALTH UNDER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF WEALTH TAX ACT SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 AND THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEARS IN APPEAL WERE ASSESSMEN T YEARS 1994-95 TO 1996-97. 51. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANC E ON THE ORDER OF THE CWT (APPEALS). 52. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD HELD THAT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARDED COMPENSATION TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,12,18,383/- BY PONG DAM AUTHORITIES, T HE ASSESSEE WAS OBLIGED TO FILE THE RETURN OF WEALTH UNDER SECTION 16(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH HE FAILED TO FURNISH. THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE CASE WERE COMPLETED EX- 29 PARTE UNDER SECTION 16(5) OF THE ACT AT TOTAL WEALT H OF RS.2,12,18,380/- IN THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994-95 TO 1996-97 UN DER APPEAL. AS PER THE AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE ACT 1992 W.E.F. 1.4.19 93, THE DEFINITION OF THE ASSET UNDER SECTION 2(EA) OF THE ACT READS A S UNDER: 2(EA) ASSETS, IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1993, OR ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, MEANS- (I) ANY BUILDING, OR LAND APPURTENANT THERETO (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS HOUSE), WHETHER USED FOR RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING A GUEST HOUSE OR OTHERWISE INCLUDING A FARM HOUSE SITUATED WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE KILOMETERS FROM LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY (WHETHER KNOWN AS MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OR BY ANY OTHER NAME) OR A CANTONMENT BOARD, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE- (1) A HOUSE MEANT EXCLUSIVELY FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AND WHICH IS ALLOTTED BY A COMPANY TO AN EMPLOYEE OR AN OFFICER OR A DIRECTOR WHO IS IN WHOLE-TIME EMPLOYMENT, HAVING A GROSS ANNUAL SALARY OF LESS THAN FIVE LAKH RUPEE; (2) ANY HOUSE FOR RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES WHICH FORMS PART OF STOCK-IN-TRADE; (3) ANY HOUSE WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY OCCUPY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY HIM; (4) ANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN LET-OUT FOR A MINIMUM PERIOD OF THREE HUNDRED DAYS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR; (5) ANY PROPERTY IN THE NATURE OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS OR COMPLEXES;] (II) MOTOR CARS (OTHER THAN THOSE USED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE OR AS STOCK-IN-TRADE); (III) JEWELLERY, BULLION, FURNITURE, UTENSILS OR AN Y OTHER ARTICLE MADE WHOLLY OR PARTLY OF GOLD, SILVER, PLATINUM OR ANY OTHER PRECIOUS METAL OR ANY ALLOY CONTAINING ONE OR MORE OF SUCH PREVIOUS METALS: PROVIDED THAT WHERE ANY OF THE SAID ASSETS IS USED BY THE ASSESSEE AS STOCK-IN-TRADE, 30 SUCH ASSET SHALL BE DEEMED AS EXCLUDED FROM THE ASSETS SPECIFIED IN THIS SUB-CLAUSE; (IV) YACHTS, BOATS AND AIRCRAFTS (OTHER THAN THOSE USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES); (V) URBAN LAND; (VI) CASH IN HAND, IN EXCESS OF FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES, OF INDIVIDUALS AND HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILIES AND IN THE CASE OF OTHER PERSONS ANY AMOUNT NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 53. AFTER THE AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE ACT 1992 THE TERM ASSET HAS BEEN REDEFINED TO INCLUDE THE SPECIFIED ASSET IS UN DER THE SAID SUB- SECTION, IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPO SES OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE IN ANY OF THE ASSESSME NT YEARS COMMENCING FROM 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1993 AND THEREAFTER. THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US ARE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994-95 TO 19 96-97 AND THE COMPUTATION OF WEALTH IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS GOVERNED BY THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 54. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RE LATION TO THE INCLUSION OF REDETERMINED COMPENSATION AWARDED TO THE ASSESSE E. THE FIRST CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS BEHALF WAS THAT THE SAID REDETERMINED COMPENSATION HAS BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO THREE PERSONS AND HE HAD NO RIGHT TO TOTAL COMPENSATION OR INTEREST IN THE S AME IN ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. 55. THE SECOND PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SA ID REDETERMINED COMPENSATION AMOUNT, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TILL THE VALUATION DATE OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEA RS, CANNOT BE INCLUDED AS AN ASSET IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS UNDER WHICH SECTION 2(EA) OF THE ACT HAD BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 1992. IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC DEFINITI ON OF ASSET UNDER SECTION 2(EA) OF THE ACT THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT WH ETHER RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED AS THE ASSET OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR THE 31 CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 19 94-95 TO 1996-97. WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 56. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH IN T HE CIVIL SUIT FILED BY THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE OF THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT TO BE AW ARDED AND ALSO HAD HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE SOLD HIS 47% SHARE I N THE REDETERMINED COMPENSATION AMOUNT TO THREE PERSONS I.E. DEVI RAM SHARMA, SMT.SNEH LATA SHARMA AND SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA. THE HON'BL E HIGH COURT VIDE JUDGMENT 25.7.2006 HELD AS UNDER: I HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THREE INTERVENING DEVELOPME NTS HAVING TAKEN PLACED ON THE CONCLUDING DAY OF THE ARGUMENTS IN THE CASE AND ONE OF THEM WAS THE FILIN G OF CMPS NO.44,45 AND 46 OF 2004 BY THE AFORESAID THREE DEFENDANTS (IN THE SUIT) WHO ARE RESPONDENTS NO.8,9 , AND 10 IN THE APPEAL. SINCE THEY HAVE RELINQUISHED THEIR ALL CLAIMS BY SETTLING THE DISPUTES AMICABLY OUTSIDE THE COURT BETWEEN THEMSELVES AND THE PLAINT IFF- APPELLANT AND SINCE THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION IF THE S UIT IS FULLY DECREED IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE AFORESAID STATEMENTS MADE BY THE SE THREE RESPONDENTS, WHILE ALLOWING THE AFORESAID THR EE APPLICATIONS BEING CMPS NO.44, 45 AND 46 OF 2004 I MODIFY THE DECREE IMPUGNED IN THIS APPEAL TO THE EX TENT THAT THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT IN RFA NO.310 OF 2003 ALONE, TO THE EXCLUSION OF RESPONDENTS NO.8, 9 AND 10 IS HELD ENTITLED TO SUCCEED TO THE ESTATE OF RAJA HARMOHINDRA SINGH, DECEASED DEFENDANT NO.1 BY WAY O F SUCCESSION. OF COURSE, THE OTHER PART OF THE DECRE E THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUCCEED TO THE EST ATE OF RAJHA HARMOHINDRA SINGH TO THE EXTENT OF 47% IN RE- DETERMINED COMPENSATION AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 28-A O F THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT IS UPHELD. IT IS ACCORDIN GLY HELD THAT RESPONDENTS NO.3, 4 AND 5 IN RFA NO.310 O F 2003, NAMELY, SHRI BALI RAM SHARMA, SMT. SNEHLATA SHARMA AND SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA ARE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE AND BE PAID 47% IN THE RE-DETERMINED COMPENSATION AMOUNT UNDER SEC 28-A, LAND ACQUISITIUON AT. SUBJECT TO THE AFORESAID MODIFICA TION IN THE IMPUGNED DECREE, RFA NO.310 OF 2003 IS DISPOSED OF. MR.B.K.MALHOTRA AND MR.AJAY KUMAR, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR RESPONDENTS NO.3 & 4 AND 5 RESPECTIVELY IN RFT NO.310 OF 2003 SUBMITTED THAT BECAUSE OF THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT BY THIS COURT, I SHOULD PASS A SPECIFIC ORDER AND ISSUE A BINDING DIRECTION FOR THE RELEASE OF 47% OF THE AFORESAID R E- DETERMINED COMPENSATION AMOUNT IN FAVOUR OF THEIR CLIENTS. AGREEING WITH THEIR SUBMISSIONS, I HEREBY ORDER AND DIRECT THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT, BEING 47% 32 OF THE RE-DETERMINED COMPENSATION AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 28-A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT SHALL BE RELEASED IN THEIR FAVOUR/PAID TO THEM. IF THIS AMO UNT IS LYING IN THIS COURT IN DEPOSIT AND/OR IS LYING IN D EPOSIT ELSEWHERE, INCLUDING THE COURT OF LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, OR IN ANY OTHER COURT , IT SHALL BE MADE OVER TO THEM ON THEIR MAKING APPLICATIONS TO THAT EFFECT. 57. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID JUDGMENT PASSED BY TH E HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CIVIL SUIT FILED BY THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO 47% SHARE IN THE REDETERMINED COMPENSATION AMOUNT, WHICH IN THE PRES ENT CASE TOTALS TO RS.2,12,18,380/- AND THE SAME HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO BE RELEASED TO THE THREE PERSONS, THE SAID SUM CANNOT BE INCLUDED AS A N ASSET IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ANOT HER PLEA I.E. SAID COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.2,12,18,380/- WAS RELEASE D BY THE LAC ON 4.6.1996 AND WAS DEPOSITED DIRECTLY WITH THE HON'BL E HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND UP TO 31.3.1996 THE SAID COMPE NSATION AMOUNT WAS NOT AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW THEREOF, WHER E THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT EVEN IF DETERMINED, BUT NOT AWARDED TO THE A SSESSEE, CANNOT BE INCLUDED AS AN ASSET IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE I N VIEW OF SECTION 2(EA) OF THE ACT. FURTHER THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAD HEL D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO RIGHT OR INTEREST TO THE SAID REDEWTERMINED COMPENSATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXC LUDE COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.2,12,18,380/- FROM THE NET WEALTH ASSE SSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E . ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994-95 TO 1996-97. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS ALLOWED. THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. 58. IN THE RESULT; I) THE APPEALS IN WTA NOS.5 TO 13/CHD/2010 ARE PART LY ALLOWED. 33 II) THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.296 TO 303/CHD/2010 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. III) THE APPEALS IN WTA NOS.14 TO 16/CHD/2010 ARE A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 9 TH OCTOBER, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH