TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (11) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is whether the assessee is entitled to the exemption under s. 5(1)(iii) of the W.T. Act, 1957, in respect of his entire palace at Rampur known as Khas Bagh Palace. It is common ground that the Khas Bagh Palace consisted of a number of buildings. . Some of these buildings were actually occupied by the Ruler but quite a few of them were not so occupied and were let out to various tenants. A list of fourteen such buildings which were let out to various officers, departments and other tenants has been set out in the order of the Tribunal. The assessee claimed that he was entitled to the exemption of the value of the entire Khas Bagh Palace including the above fourteen buildings under the provisions of s. 5(1)(iii) referred to above. That prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wealth of the assessee ? " The question which falls for our consideration is a very narrow one regarding the interpretation of s. 5(1)(iii). . It is admitted that under para. 13 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, the Central Govt. declared Khas Bagh Palace, Rampur, as the official residence of the Ruler of Rampur. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, since the Tribunal has accepted his contention that the entire palace should be treated as " one building " for the purposes of the W.T. Act, the assessee was entitled to exemption in respect of the value of that building so long as it was substantially in the occupation of the Ruler. Learned counsel submits that the exemption granted to a Ruler in respect of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt in Agha Jafar Ali Khan v. Radha Kishen, AIR 1951 Punj 433, a case decided under the Rent Control Act. Though the question raised in this reference is somewhat ticklish, we are of opinion that the Tribunal arrived at the correct conclusion on this issue. The difficulty has arisen because the notification under para. 13 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, relates not to buildings but to palaces as such. Apparently the reasons for s. 5(1)(iii) using the words " any one building " is only to ensure that the exemption is confined to only one palace. For, in the case of certain Rulers more than one palace was notified as the official residence under the said Order, for example, in the case of the Ruler of Rampur himse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not in the occupation of the Ruler this condition cannot clearly be said to be fulfilled. The insistence of the assessee's counsel that the entire palace should be treated as one building does not really help him. For, strictly speaking, it could be said that since the entire palace, which constitutes the building for our present purpose, is not in the occupation of the Ruler, he is not at all entitled to exemption in respect of the palace. This would be a very extreme position. Neither the officer nor the appellate authorities have taken this view. The Tribunal has placed a liberal construction on the provisions of the statute, consistent with its objects and intendment, and it has held that the assessee would be entitled to the exemption....