D. R. Singh, J.M. - (1.) THE assessee has filed eight appeals, W.T.A. Nos. 48 to 55/(Asr)/1986. THEse are taken up together and disposed of together as they arise out of the single order passed by the CWT(A), Jalandhar in appeal Nos. 2 to 10 & 12/1984-85/CIT(A) dt. 31st January, 1986, the parties are same and further because most of the issues involved in these appeals are almost identical. First, we propose to dispose of W.T.A. No. 48(Asr/1986. THE assessee has taken the following effective grounds : "1. Valuation of claims in pending litigation relating to enhancement of land acquisition compensation of agricultural lands : (a) Pendency of litigation relating to enhancement of land acquisition compensation on the valuation date has been wrongly raised to the status of a right and also to an asset within the meaning of s. 2(e) and (2m) of the WT Act, exigible to wealth-tax. Claim for enhanced compensation being in a flux in appeals, it cannot be legally deemed to be an asset till its final determination by a competent Court. A mere actionable claim is not transferable property even under Transfer of Property Act. (b) Various contentions and submissions canvassed at the bar and in the relevant paper book have been wrongly repelled. According to facts and circumstances of the case, amount of Rs. 13,16,869 have been wrongly assessed as value of the alleged right to receive enhanced land acquisition compensation and interest. (c) Till the determination of the compensation by the ultimate Court, the compensation as awarded by the lower Court at the worst could have been taken as value of the actionable claim. (d) THE ultimate grant of interest under s. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is a discretionary relief and therefore, it has been wrongly valued as part of the asset under the head 'right' to receive enhanced compensation. (e) At any rate, while determination value, hazards, risks and gambles of litigation have not been given proper weight and allowance.
(2.) Debt owed on account of land acquisition (a) Rs. 6,71,865 have been wrongly held after enhancement notice as debt owed to the assessee on the valuation date relating to Ballabgarh land acquisition compensation. Compensation awarded by the Distt. Court by order dt. 12th February, 1969 was on the valuation date subject to the risk and hazards of an appeal by the State and therefore, matter was still in flux and it was not exigible to tax. At any rate, the risk was there. Moreover no allowance has been given for hazards of execution for recovery of said amount. Air Field (in the revenue estate Faridkot Tehsil and Distt. Faridkot). The value of land of air field have been wrongly brought to tax by serving a notice of enhancement in asst. yr. 1967-68 to 1969-70. According to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not exigible to tax on the relevant valuation dates. Notice of enhancement should not have been issued. (b) At any rate, value assessed is exigible keeping in view quality, nature and situation of the land. (c) Out of value of Rs. 2,05,000 as assessed by the WTO, Rs. 1,50,000 have been wrongly attributed to the value of hanger. In asst. yr. 1966-67, Revenue had assessed its value at Rs. 36,367. How can in the assessment year in question, value could jump to Rs. 1,50,000 as its structure is admittedly an old one and is virtually a junk. (d) It has been ignored that in all the earlier assessment years, from 1967-68, Revenue had always treated this property as not taxable for not following the past practice.
(3.) REVIERA Flats Delhi : (a) Learned CWT(A) has erred in affirming the decision of the WTO that the property is exigible to wealth-tax in the hands of the assessee. It has been wrongly held as an 'asset' within the meaning of s. 2(e) and 2(m) of the Act. The plea of the appellant that no title stood conveyed and vested in him as no proper conveyance of sale has been executed and registered in his favour, have been wrongly repelled without any cogent and worthwhile reasons. It has been ignored that the property in question did not 'belong' to him on the relevant date within the meaning to s. 2(e) and 2(m) of the Act. It has been wrongly brought to charge in the hands of the assessee. Various submissions canvassed at the bar and in the relevant paper book have been wrongly repelled. Case law relied upon by the appellant's side has been wrongly given no consideration whereas the case law relied upon in the impugned order is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. (b) Otherwise also the value of the property have been wrongly taken at Rs. 1,50,000 on the valuation date when on 25th November, 1968, it was acquired only for Rs. 1,00,000 vide receipt No. 489 dt. 25th November, 1968 from REVIERA Flats (P) Ltd., there cannot be any increase in value to the tune of Rs. 50,000 just after four months of the agreement of sale.;