TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (3) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing question to the High Court for being answered : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the buildings of the Khas Bagh Palace which were let out to different persons from whom rental income was received by the assessee were not in the occupation of the assessee within the meaning of section 5(1)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and hence the value thereof was includible in the net wealth of the assessee ? " The assessee, the late H. H. Nawab Sir Syed Raza Ali Khan, Nawab of Rampur, is the owner of Khas Bagh Palace. The said Palace was declared by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under paragraph 13 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d provision would entitle the assessee to exemption to the extent the assessee occupies the building or the portion of the building and, therefore, the liberal interpretation should be preferred. With this finding, the High Court answered the question referred to it in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the expression " any one building " in section 5(1)(iii) is not susceptible of an interpretation by making a further dissection to import into it the portion of the building or whole of the building, as that would tantamount to a fresh legislation which the court is not empowered to do. According to learned counsel, the Central Government having declared ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in mind and if each and every word used in section 5(1)(iii) of the Act is given its literal grammatical meaning then the only conclusion possible is that the building or the part of the building in the occupation of the Ruler and which has been declared by the Central Government as the official residence of the Ruler would be exempted under the said provision. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it would be appropriate to notice section 5(1)(iii) of the Act : " 5. (1) 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--- . . . (iii) any one building in the occupation of a Ruler declared by the Central Government, as h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....art of the statute should have effect. " In the case of taxing statutes, it has been held by this court in several cases that one must have regard to the strict letter of the law and if the Revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly in the provisions of law, the subject can be taxed. This being the position, a fair reading of section 5(1)(iii) of the Act would reveal that only the building or the part of the building in the occupation of the Ruler, which has been declared by the Central Government to be the official residence under the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, will not be included in the net wealth of the assessee. The contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that once a building has....