1983 (4) TMI 98

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessee agitated and ultimately on 22-11-1977, the arbitrators awarded a sum of Rs. 22,37,874. According to the WTO, the assessee's interest in this awarded amount came to Rs. 4,47,574. He, accordingly, included this amount in the assessee's net wealth on the relevant valuation dates, i.e., 31-3-1967, 31-3-1968, 31-3-1969, 31-3-1970 and 31-3-1971. 3. The assessee filed appeals before the AAC who reduced the addition by Rs. 1,79,124 on the ground that the compensation money awarded as the cost of the land was only Rs. 13,42,320. The balance was on account of 15 per cent solatium amounting to Rs. 2,01,348 and interest amounting to Rs. 7,41,166. This amount could not be included in the assessee's wealth and, consequently, the assessee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to be force in this contention and the representative of the revenue had not much to say in this behalf. His only reliance was upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pandit Lakshmi Kant Jha v. CWT [1973] 90 ITR 97. However, all that has been held therein was that even if compensation for acquisition of land is not payable immediately and spread over a period of 40 years, that may be relevant for the purpose of evaluating the right to compensation. However, the right to receive compensation was property and as such assessable for the purpose of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). There is no dispute over the principle laid down in this case, but the compensation amount had already been determined before the same was sought to be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....from the end of the assessment year in which the net wealth was assessable or one from the date of the filing of the return or a revised return under section 15 of the Act, whichever is later. The assessee's contention in this behalf was that the assessee was not bound to file a return under section 17(1)(a) or (b) after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment years in question and any returns filed by him thereafter would be invalid and could not confer jurisdiction upon the WTO to make the assessments accordingly. 7. After carefully considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that although the WTO may not be entitled to call for the returns from the assessee under clause (a) or (b) of ....