RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THESE four applications under S. 256(2) arise out of the assessment proceedings of the same assessee for the purpose of securing direction to the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and refer one identical question of law said to be arising out of its appellate order for successive assessment years. It concerns the claim of the assessee to exemption under S. 10(19A) of the IT Act, 1961 of the income from the property owned as Umaid Bhawan Palace. The question which is suggested by the CIT to be referred to this Court for each assessment year in each case reads as under : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the rental income from Umaid Bhawan Palace was exempt under S. 10(19A) of the IT Act, 1961 ?" It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties that controversy has since been set at rest by a Bench decision of this Court in respect of very same assessee for the asst. yrs. 1973-74 to 1977-78.
(3.) THE aforesaid question has been answered in favour of the assessee by holding that it is not possible to split up one palace into parts for granting exemption only to that part in the self- occupation of an ex-ruler as his official residence and to deny the benefit of exemption to the other portion of the palace rented out by the ruler, since the entire palace is declared as his official residence. Hence, even if only a part of the palace only is in the self-occupation of the former ruler, and the rest has been let out, the exemption available under S. 10(19A) of the IT Act, 1961, will be available to the entire palace. In coming to this conclusion, this Court has followed another decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Bharatchandra Banjdeo (1985) 48 CTR (MP) 382 : (1985) 154 ITR 236 (MP) : TC 32R.658. The decision of this Court in CIT vs. H.H. Maharao Bhim Singh (1988) 70 CTR (Raj) 80 : (1988) 173 ITR 79 (Raj) : TC 32R.662, we are informed by the learned counsel, has not been appealed against. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the application under S. 256(1) has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal and do not deserve further consideration. Accordingly, the application is rejected.;