1985 (12) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the learned single judge by his order dated July 20, 1985, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition No. 122 of 1984. The learned judge has rejected the appellant's prayer for inspection by observing thus: " Be that as it may, at this stage without speculating on the merits of the petition, I find that no useful purpose will be served by granting relief to the petitioner which he has prayed in the present CMP." According to the appellant, there were two matters before the Government of India, (i) whether the appellant was the owner of the jewellery or other valuable articles of personal use lying in those boxes on the ground that the properties are heirlooms, and (ii) whether exemption in respect of such items of properties as heirloo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nably facilitate its determination. We, therefore, fail to appreciate how the learned judge felt that no useful purpose will be served by the inspection sought for by the appellant. Counsel for the Union of India as well as the learned Advocate General of Jammu & Kashmir appearing for the State strenuously urged before us that the appellant's claim of ownership or title to these items has been refuted in the counter-affidavits that have been filed in the main writ petition where the property has been claimed to be State property and in this behalf reference was also made to one of the preliminary objections raised by the Union of India to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that at the time of the settlement arrived at b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed at a considerably enhanced figure over and above the value returned by the appellant in his returns, and the exemption claimed by him under section 5(1)(xiv) of the Wealth-tax Act in respect of the heirlooms has been declined and his estate has been assessed. The relevant portion in each of the assessment orders in this behalf runs thus: " 2. The assessee has claimed exemption of this estate (estate, lying in Srinagar Toshakhana) under section 5(1)(xiv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. However, I have been given to understand that the Central Board of Direct Taxes has not given recognition to the claim of the assessee. Therefore, the estate is assessed." The appellant has challenged these assessment orders in appeals which are pending. The....