A.P. Chowdhri, J. - (1.) THE Amritsar Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal made Wealth-tax References Nos. 6 and 7 of 1978 raising the following questions for decision of this court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, land measuring 542 kanals 19 marlas having been received by the petitioner for act of gallantry by his ancestors was not exempt under the provisions of Section 5(1)(xviii) of the Act, 1957 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the entire amount of Rs. 37,000 in respect of Daryapur land was liable to be included in the net wealth of the petitioner ? (both at the instance of the assessee) 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the value of 3,851 fruit-bearing trees on the land as determined by the authorities was excessive and that they should be valued afresh as fuel wood and not as fruit-bearing trees?" (at the instance of the Revenue)
(2.) THE same Bench referred an additional question (Wealth-tax Reference No. 109 of 1989) in pursuance of an order of the High Court dated May 26, 1988, under Section 27(3) of the Act, in the following terms : "4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal regarding valuation of land is based on irrelevant considerations after rejection of relevant and admissible material on the record and is arbitrary and perverse ?" (at the instance of the Revenue) All the questions have arisen out of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal dated March 14, 1977. S. Baldev Inder Singh filed a return of his wealth under the Act as an individual on July 28, 1973, for the assessment year 1970-71. The valuation date was March 31, 1970. The assets included in the return, inter alia, comprised land measuring 542 kanals 19 marlas. The assessee claimed exemption of the said land under Section 5(1)(xviii) of the Act. The case of the assessee was that the said land had been given to his ancestors in 1857 as a gallantry award and he was, therefore, entitled to the said exemption. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the Wealth-tax Officer on the ground that the assessee was not the recipient of the award but got the jagir land by inheritance. It was also held that the jagir was given to the awardee on account of loyalty to the British Government and not on account of gallantry or merit. It was also held that the exemption was available to the awardee and not to his descendants. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed the above finding of the Wealth-tax Officer. The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the view of the Wealth-tax Officer as well as that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and held that the assessee was not entitled to claim the exemption envisaged under Section 5(1)(xviii) of the Act. Another asset included in the return was land measuring 2,738 bighas at village Daryapur in the then Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal. The said land had been declared surplus and allotted to the tenants under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The total compensation which the assessee was held entitled to receive was Rs. 37,000 in 10 annual instalments of Rs. 3,700 each. Up to the valuation date, i.e., March 31, 1970, the assessee had received Rs. 4,312 on this account, the remaining amount being payable by instalments at the rate of Rs. 3,700 per year. The Wealth-tax Officer included the amount of Rs. 37,000 by taking the view that the amount related to a realisable claim and, therefore, the same was assessable in the hands of the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed the above finding for the reason that the amount represented a debt due to the assessee. It was further held that what was important was that the assessee was entitled to get the same in full either at once or in instalments and that it was not relevant whether he actually recovered it or not. The above finding was affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal and it was held that the amount of Rs. 37,000 created a vested right in favour of the assessee and thus became a debt due to the assessee and the date of actual payment or receipt was irrelevant.
(3.) THE return also included land of the assessee in which 3,851 fruit-bearing trees were standing. THE Wealth-tax Officer took the fuel value of the said trees as well as its yearly fruit-bearing capacity into consideration for estimating the value of those trees. THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed the finding of the Wealth-tax Officer. THE Appellate Tribunal reversed the finding of the authorities below and held that the value of the trees to be taken into consideration was only as fuel wood and, in order to determine the value, directed the matter to be remitted to the Wealth-tax Officer. Another asset included in the return was land described as urban and suburban in the revenue estate of Gumtala situated on the outskirts of the city of Amritsar. The Wealth-tax Officer took into consideration the situation of the land, its proximity to developed and fashionable localities of Amritsar, some instances of other sales in nearby localities and the amount paid as compensation by the Improvement Trust for acquisition of land situated nearby and came to the conclusion that the value of the land should be estimated at the rate of Rs. 9 per square yard. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed this finding. The Appellate Tribunal, however, modified the finding. It was held that the land in question was ultimately acquired by the Amritsar Improvement Trust by award dated October 3, 1973, according to which the assessee was held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 5 and Rs. 4 per square yard for urban and suburban land, respectively, on the relevant date which, in this case was January 21, 1972. The Appellate Tribunal, therefore, held that the value of the land should be worked out at the rate of Rs. 5 per square yard for both urban and suburban land and that the assessee was entitled to a relief to the extent of Rs. 4 per square yard in the valuation of the land. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. ;