ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA V. BHIM SINGH, Kota

ITA 821/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3602 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROSHANTA MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: V B MAHESHWARI CA DHK
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;K NO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 821/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA. CUKE VS. M/S. BHIM SINGH, BRIJRAJ BHAWAN, CIVIL LINES, KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AAAHB 7814 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. ROSHANTA MEENA (JCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V.B. MAHESHWARI (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 12.06.2018. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/06/2018. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2017 OF LD. CIT (A), KOTA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN I) DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS FAVOR FO LLOWING HIS PREDECESSORS ORDER IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ORDE RS BASED ON WHICH THE CIT (A) ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE HA VE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND APPEAL IS PENDING IN DIFFERENT APPELLATE FORA. 2 ITA NO. 821/JP/2017 SHRI BHIM SINGH, KOTA. II) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LIBERTY TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GR OUND AND TO MODIFY/AMEND THE GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HE ARING. THOUGH THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE GENERA L IN NATURE AND HAVE NOT SPECIFIED THE GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER, HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE LD. D/R HAVE AGREED THAT THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) TO THE EXTE NT OF DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO WERE DELETED. THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS AS RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 2. THE DISPUTE IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS REGA RDING THE INCOME ASSESSED BY THE AO FROM UMED BHAWAN PALACE, KOTA WHICH WAS UNDI SPUTEDLY IN THE OCCUPATION OF EX-RULER HH MAHARAO BHIM SINGHJI TILL HE EXPIRED IN THE YEAR 1991. THEREAFTER THE SAID PALACE IS IN THE OCCUPATION OF SUCCESSOR OF HH MAHARAO BHIM SINGHJI, KOTA AND THE ASSESSMENT ARE BEING FRAMED IN THE HANDS OF THE SUCCESSOR. THE DISPUTE WAS ALSO REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED A S INDIVIDUAL WHEREAS THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF HUF. THE VAR IOUS DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) WERE DELETED BY THE LD. CIT (A) AS UNDER :- 3 ITA NO. 821/JP/2017 SHRI BHIM SINGH, KOTA. 4 ITA NO. 821/JP/2017 SHRI BHIM SINGH, KOTA. 5 ITA NO. 821/JP/2017 SHRI BHIM SINGH, KOTA. 6 ITA NO. 821/JP/2017 SHRI BHIM SINGH, KOTA. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR S. 3. THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE LD. CI T (APPEALS) HAS FOLLOWED THE EARLIER DECISION, HOWEVER, THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THE FACT THAT AFTER THE DEATH OF HH MAHARAO BHIM SINGHJI, THE SUCCESSOR OF THE ESTATE OF EX-RULER INCLUDING THE UMED BHAWAN PALACE CAN BE CONSIDERED AS HUF INS TEAD OF INDIVIDUAL. FURTHER THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(19A) IS NOT AVAILABL E TO THE SUCCESSOR SPECIFICALLY ON THE REASON THAT THE EX-RULER IS NO MORE IN OCCUPATI ON OF THE PALACE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THUS THE LEARNED D/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISO T O SECTION 10(19A) IT IS A CONDITION 7 ITA NO. 821/JP/2017 SHRI BHIM SINGH, KOTA. THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON 1 ST DAY OF 1972 THE ANNUAL VALUE OF SUCH PALACE IN THE OCCUPATION OF SUCH RULER DURING THE R ELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM INCOME-TAX. WHEN THIS CONDITION IS NOT SATISFIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THEN THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(19A) I S NOT AVAILABLE. THE LD. D/R HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 3.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE COVERED BY THE EARLIER DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE REPORTED IN 390 ITR 532 (SC). HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 AND 2013-14 VIDE O RDER DATED 4 TH OCTOBER, 2017 IN ITA NO. 261 & 262/JP/17 AND C.O. NO. 20 & 21/JP/201 7. 4. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE S WERE CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 201 2-13 AND 2013-14. THE LD.CIT (A) HAS ALSO DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE REPORTED IN 390 ITR 532 (SC) HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN PARA 25 TO 39 AS UNDER :- 25. IN ORDER TO CLAIM EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF INCOME -TAX ON THE RESIDENTIAL PALACE OF THE RULER UNDER SECTION 10(19 A), IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE RULER TO SATISFY THAT FIRST, HE OWNS THE PALACE AS HIS ANCESTRAL PROPERTY; SECOND, SUCH PALACE IS IN HIS OCCUPATION AS HIS RESIDENCE; AND THIRD, THE PALACE IS DECLARED EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF INCOME-TAX UNDER PA RAGRAPH 15 (III) OF THE ORDER, 1950 BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. 26. NOW, THE QUESTION ARISES THAT WHERE PART OF THE RE SIDENTIAL PALACE IS FOUND TO BE IN OCCUPATION OF THE TENANT AND REMAINING IS IN OCCUPATION OF THE RULER FOR HIS RESIDENCE, WHETHER IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, T HE RULER IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM 8 ITA NO. 821/JP/2017 SHRI BHIM SINGH, KOTA. EXEMPTION FOR THE WHOLE OF HIS RESIDENTIAL PALACE U NDER SECTION 10(19A) OR SUCH EXEMPTION WOULD CONFINE ONLY TO THAT PORTION O F THE PALACE WHICH IS IN HIS ACTUAL OCCUPATION. IN OTHER WORDS, WHETHER THE EXEMPTION WOULD CEASE TO APPLY TO LET OUT PORTION THEREBY SUBJECTING THE INC OME DERIVED FROM LET OUT PORTION TO PAYMENT OF INCOME-TAX IN THE HANDS OF TH E RULER. 27. THIS VERY QUESTION WAS EXAMINED BY THE M.P. HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF BHARATCHANDRA BANJDEO ( SUPRA ) IN DETAIL. IT WAS HELD THAT NO RELIANCE COULD BE PLACED ON SECTION 5(III) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT W HILE CONSTRUING SECTION 10(19A) FOR THE REASON THAT THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED I N SECTION 5(III) IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 10(19A) OF T HE I.T. ACT. THEIR LORDSHIPS DISTINGUISHED THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MOHD. ALI KHAN V. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 948/12 TAXMAN 330 , WHICH AROSE UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT. IT WAS HELD THAT EVEN IF THE RULER HAD LET OUT THE PORTION OF HIS RESIDENTIAL PALACE, YET HE WOULD CON TINUE TO ENJOY THE EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF ENTIRE PALACE BECAUSE IT IS NOT POSSI BLE TO SPLIT THE EXEMPTION IN TWO PARTS, I.E., THE ONE IN HIS OCCUPATION AND THE OTHER IN POSSESSION OF THE TENANT. 28. JUSTICE G.L. OZA, THE LEARNED CHIEF JUSTICE (AS HI S LORDSHIP THEN WAS), SPEAKING FOR THE BENCH HELD AS UNDER: '8. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT UNDER THIS ORDER T HE INCOME FROM ALL THE PALACES OF A RULER WHICH ARE DECLARED TO BE THE OFF ICIAL RESIDENCE WERE EXEMPT. UNDER CLAUSE (19A) OF SECTION 10, ONLY ONE PALACE IN OCCUPATION HAS BEEN EXEMPTED AND IT APPEARS THAT SI MILARLY IN THE W.T. ACT INSTEAD OF USING THE WORD 'PALACE' THEY HAVE US ED THE WORDS 'ONE BUILDING IN OCCUPATION OF A RULER' WHICH HAS BEEN E XEMPTED FROM TAX. 9. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN THIS REFERENCE THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS A PALACE. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT A PORTION OF IT IS IN OCCUPATION. THE ONLY QUESTION WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED BY LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE REVENUE IS THAT IF ONLY A PORTION OF THE PALACE IS IN OCCUPATION, THE EXEMPTION UNDER CLAUSE (19A) OF SECTION 10 WOULD BE AVAILABLE ONLY FOR THAT PART AND NOT FOR THE WHOLE. THE CHANGE BRO UGHT ABOUT BY THE INSERTION UNDER THE MERGED STATES (TAXATION CONCESS IONS) ORDER IS CLEARLY ILLUSTRATED BY THE TWO PROVISIONS QUOTED AB OVE. BY CLAUSE (19A), THE EXEMPTION HAS BEEN LIMITED ONLY TO ONE P ALACE IN OCCUPATION. IF THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED A FURTHER S PLITTING UP, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN CLAUSE (19A) THAT SUCH PORTIO N OF THE PALACE IN OCCUPATION IS ONLY EXEMPTED, BUT IT APPEARS THAT TH E LANGUAGE USED BY THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT CONTEMPLATE A FURTHER SPLIT TING UP. IN MOHD. ALI KHAN'S CASE: [1983] 140 ITR 948 (DELHI) WHICH IS A CASE UNDER THE W.T. ACT, THE ONLY QUESTION CONSIDERED WAS THAT IF THE PALACE WHICH WAS DECLARED TO BE AN OFFICIAL RESIDENCE HAD A NUMB ER OF BUILDINGS, AS THE EXEMPTION UNDER THE W.T. ACT IS AVAILABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF ONE BUILDING WHICH IS IN OCCUPATION AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION, THAT THE OTHER BUILDINGS WHICH MAY NOT BE IN OCCUPATION BUT DECLARED TO BE AN OFFICIAL RESIDENCE SHOULD BE EXEM PTED, WAS NOT ACCEPTED. IN CLAUSE (19A) OF SECTION 10, IN THE PLA CE OF 'BUILDING', THE 9 ITA NO. 821/JP/2017 SHRI BHIM SINGH, KOTA. PHRASE EMPLOYED IS 'ONE PALACE' AND SO FAR AS THE C ASE IN HAND IS CONCERNED, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THIS OFFICIAL RE SIDENCE IS ONLY ONE PALACE AND NOT MORE THAN ONE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTA NCES, IN OUR OPINION, CLAUSE (19A) COULD NOT BE INTERPRETED TO M EAN THAT IT CONTEMPLATES FURTHER SPLITTING UP OF PORTIONS OF A PALACE. THE LANGUAGE OF CLAUSE (19A) OF SECTION 10 DOES NOT JUSTIFY IT. IT IS SETTLED THAT IN CASES OF EXEMPTION, THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE HAS TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED BUT EVEN IF THIS PRINCIPLE IS NOT CONSIDE RED, THERE ARE NO WORDS IN CLAUSE (19A) OF SECTION 10 FROM WHICH AN I NTENTION FOR SPLITTING UP OF THE PALACE INTO PORTIONS COULD BE G ATHERED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION ADVANCED B Y THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED.' 29. RELYING UPON THE AFORESAID DECISION, RAJASTHAN HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT HEREIN IN H.H. MAHARAO BHIM SINGHJI , ( SUPRA ) ANSWERED THE QUESTION IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS (1973-74 TO 1977- 78). 30. JUSTICE J.S. VERMA, THE LEARNED CHIEF JUSTICE (AS HIS LORDSHIP THEN WAS) SPEAKING FOR THE BENCH HELD AS UNDER: 'SO FAR AS THE FIRST QUESTION RELATING TO EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 10(19A) IS CONCERNED, THERE IS A DIRECT DEC ISION IN CIT V. BHARATCHANDRA BANJDEO, [1985] 154 ITR 236 (MP) . IT WAS HELD THEREIN THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SPLIT UP ON E PALACE INTO PARTS FOR GRANTING EXEMPTION ONLY TO THAT PART IN SELF-OCCUPA TION OF THE EX-RULER AS HIS OFFICIAL RESIDENCE AND TO DENY THE BENEFIT O F EXEMPTION TO THE OTHER PORTION OF THE PALACE RENTED OUT BY THE RULER , SINCE THE ENTIRE PALACE IS DECLARED AS HIS OFFICIAL RESIDENCE. ACCOR DINGLY, IT WAS HELD THAT EVEN IF ONLY A PART OF THE PALACE IS IN THE SE LF-OCCUPATION OF THE FORMER RULER AND THE REST HAS BEEN LET OUT, THE EXE MPTION AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 10(19A) WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE ENTI RE PALACE. NO DECISION TAKING A CONTRARY VIEW HAS BEEN CITED BEFO RE US. WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD GROUND TO DEPART FROM THAT VIEW, WHEN THE VIEW TAKEN IN THAT DECISION IS UNDOUBTEDLY A PLAUSIBLE VIEW. IN T HE CASE OF A TAXING STATUTE, A PLAUSIBLE VIEW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PREFERRED IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. FOLLOWING THAT DECISION, TH E FIRST QUESTION HAS TO BE ANSWERED AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.' 31. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID VIEW, THE HIGH COURT OF RA JASTHAN DECLINED TO MAKE REFERENCE TO THE HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 256(1) OF THE I.T. ACT IN LATER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND DISMISSED THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE REVENUE UNDER SECTION 256(2) OF THE I.T. ACT (SEE- CIT V. H.H. MAHARAO BHIM SINGH [2002] 124 TAXMAN 26 (RAJ.) ) WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS. 10 ITA NO. 821/JP/2017 SHRI BHIM SINGH, KOTA. '5. IN COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION, THIS COURT HAS FO LLOWED ANOTHER DECISION OF THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN CIT V. BHARATCHANDA BANJDEO (1985) 154 ITR 236 (M.P.) . THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN CIT V. H.H. MAHARAO BHIM SINGHJI (1988) 173 ITR 79 , WE ARE INFORMED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL, HAS NOT BEEN APPEA LED AGAINST. 6. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE OPINIO N THAT THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 256(1) HAS RIGHTLY BEEN REJECTED BY T HE TRIBUNAL AND DO NOT DESERVE FURTHER CONSIDERATION.' 32. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE M ADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARATCHANDRA BANJDEO ( SUPRA ) AND THE ONE TAKEN IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IN MAHARAO BHIM SINGHJI'S CASE ( SUPRA ) BY RIGHTLY PLACING RELIANCE ON BHARATCHANDRA BANJDEO'S CASE ( SUPRA ) IS THE CORRECT VIEW AND WE FIND NO GOOD GROUND TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW. 33. AS RIGHTLY HELD IN THE CASE OF BHARATCHANDRA BANJDEO ( SUPRA ), NO RELIANCE COULD BE PLACED ON SECTION 5(III) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT W HILE CONSTRUING SECTION 10(19A) OF THE I.T. ACT. IT IS DUE TO MARKED DIFFERENCE IN THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IN BOTH SECTIONS. IT IS APPOSITE TO REPRODUCE SECTION 5 (II I) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT AS UNDER: '5. EXEMPTIONS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN ASSETS-WEALTH- TAX SHALL NOT BE PAYABLE BY AN ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING ASSETS AND SUCH ASSETS SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE NET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE- ( I ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( II ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( III ) ANY ONE BUILDING IN THE OCCUPATION OF A RULER, BE ING A BUILDING WHICH IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE CONSTITU TION (TWENTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1971, WAS HIS OFFICIAL RESIDENCE BY VIRTUE OF A DECLARATION BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT UNDER PARAGRAPH 13 OF THE MERGED STATES (TAXATION CONCESSIONS) ORDER, 1949, OR PARAGRAPH 15 OF THE PART B STATES (TAXATION CONCESSIONS) ORDER, 1950;' 34. WE FIND THAT IN SECTION 10(19A) OF THE I.T. ACT, T HE LEGISLATURE HAS USED THE EXPRESSION 'PALACE' FOR CONSIDERING THE GRANT OF EX EMPTION TO THE RULER WHEREAS ON THE SAME SUBJECT, THE LEGISLATURE HAS USED DIFFEREN T EXPRESSION NAMELY 'ANY ONE BUILDING' IN SECTION 5 (III) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT. WE CANNOT IGNORE THIS DISTINCTION WHILE INTERPRETING SECTION 10(19A) WHICH, IN OUR VI EW, IS SIGNIFICANT. 35. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IF THE LEGISLATURE INTE NDED TO SPILT THE PALACE IN PART(S), ALIKE HOUSES FOR TAXING THE SUBJECT, IT WOULD HAVE SAID SO BY EMPLOYING APPROPRIATE 11 ITA NO. 821/JP/2017 SHRI BHIM SINGH, KOTA. LANGUAGE IN SECTION 10(19A) OF THE I.T. ACT. WE, HO WEVER, DO NOT FIND SUCH LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IN SECTION 10(19A). 36. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNS EL FOR THE APPELLANT, SECTION 23(2) AND (3), USES THE EXPRESSION 'HOUSE OR PART O F A HOUSE'. SUCH EXPRESSION DOES NOT FIND PLACE IN SECTION 10(19A) OF THE I.T. ACT. LIKEWISE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUCH EXPRESSION IN SECTION 23, SPECIFICALLY DEALING WITH THE CASES RELATING TO 'PALACE'. THIS SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE OF THE WORDS IN SECTION 10(19 A) OF THE I.T. ACT AND SECTION 23 ALSO SUGGEST THAT THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT INTEND TO TAX PORTION OF THE 'PALACE' BY SPLITTING IT IN PARTS. 37. IT IS A SETTLED RULE OF INTERPRETATION THAT IF TWO STATUTES DEALING WITH THE SAME SUBJECT USE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE THEN IT IS NOT PERMI SSIBLE TO APPLY THE LANGUAGE OF ONE STATUTE TO OTHER WHILE INTERPRETING SUCH STATUTES. SIMILARLY, ONCE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO FULFILL THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION FOR CLA IMING EXEMPTION UNDER THE ACT THEN PROVISIONS DEALING WITH GRANT OF EXEMPTION SHOULD B E CONSTRUED LIBERALLY BECAUSE THE EXEMPTIONS ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. 38. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE REASONINGS, WE ARE OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE M.P. HIGH COURT IN BHARATCHANDRA BANJDEO'S CASE ( SUPRA ) AND THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN H.H. MAHARAO BHIM SINGHJI'S CASE ( SUPRA ) IS A CORRECT VIEW. 39. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE QUESTION INVOLVED IN THIS CASE HAD ALSO ARISEN IN PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS' (1973-74 TILL 1977-78) AND WAS DE CIDED IN APPELLANT'S FAVOUR WHEN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) NO. 3764 OF 2007 FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED BY THIS COURT ON 25.08.2010 BY AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT REFERRED SUPRA . THUS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN CON SIDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND PARTICULARLY THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(19A) OF THE IT ACT WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE VALUE OF THE PALACE IN QUESTION. THOUGH THE OBJECTION OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE LD. D/R HAVE SUBSTANCE AND MERITS AS THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED I N THE PROVISO TO SECTION 10(19A) SUCH PALACE SHOULD BE IN OCCUPATION OF THE EX-RULER DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR FOR ELIGIBLE FOR THE EXEMPTION FROM INCOME-TAX , HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ON THE POINT WHICH IS A BINDING PRINCIPLE AND LAW OF 12 ITA NO. 821/JP/2017 SHRI BHIM SINGH, KOTA. THE LAND, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WI TH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE DES ERVES DISMISSAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/06/20 18. SD/- SD/- ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 14/06/2018. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA. 2. THE RESPONDENT M/S. BHIM SINGH, KOTA. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 821/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 13 ITA NO. 821/JP/2017 SHRI BHIM SINGH, KOTA.