1981 (8) TMI 136 - AT - Wealth-tax

Appeals by Revenue on Reassessments and Land Compensation Claim Disputes

WEALTH TAX OFFICER. Versus SMT. SARASWATI DHANAKOTI.

WEALTH TAX OFFICER. Versus SMT. SARASWATI DHANAKOTI. - TTJ 015, 560, Issues:- Appeal against cancellation of reassessments for asst. yr. 1967-68 to 1972-73 and deletion of addition to claim of land acquisition compensation for asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75.Analysis:1. The case involves appeals by the Revenue challenging the cancellation of reassessments for certain assessment years and the deletion of an addition to the claim of the assessee for land acquisition compensation. The property in question was acquired by the government, and there were disputes regarding the compensation received by the assessee. Initially, the assessee claimed only Rs. 10 lakhs, but later filed a suit against another party claiming a balance of compensation. The CIT(A) held that the amount accrued to the assessee only after the suit was compromised in 1975, and therefore, the reassessments were unwarranted. The Revenue contended that the amount ultimately received by the assessee should be added to her net wealth. The assessee argued that there was no under assessment, and the reassessment was not justified. The Tribunal found that the matter required reconsideration by the CWT (A) as the asset existed from a certain assessment year onwards, and the valuation of the asset needed to be determined.2. The Tribunal observed that the right of the assessee to receive compensation for the acquired land existed even before the court decree. The existence of the asset and the fact that the earlier agreement, based on which Rs. 10 lakhs had been assessed, was given up by both parties, were not disclosed in the assessee's return. Therefore, there was a failure to disclose fully and truly all material, giving the WTO valid jurisdiction to reopen the assessment for certain years. The Tribunal differentiated between the assessment years where the asset existed and where it did not, concluding that for certain years, the reassessment was valid. The Tribunal emphasized that the valuation of the asset needed to be revisited for the relevant assessment years.3. The Tribunal highlighted that the asset in question was a claim for reimbursement of an amount received by another party, treated as an agent. The valuation of this asset during the litigation was uncertain, as pointed out in a Supreme Court case. Since the CWT had canceled the assessments based on the non-existence of the asset before the litigation ended, there was no valuation done. The Tribunal set aside the orders for certain assessment years and directed a fresh disposal for valuation. However, for other assessment years, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CWT's order. The appeals and cross objections were disposed of accordingly, with some being dismissed and others treated as allowed.