Madam, J. - (1.) BRIJRAJ Singh (petitioner) is son of Maharao Bhim Singh Ex-ruler of Kota whose property renowned as Ummed Bhawan Palace having 973 acres of land duly recognised as his official residence and in his occupation, is subject matter of the assessment and reassessment by order dated 27.3.97 (Ann. 6) of the respondent No. 2 for the year 1983-84 passed under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (for short "WT Act").
(2.) ALBEIT wealth tax assessment of year 1983-84 admittedly had been completed under Section 16(3) on 15.3.88 on total wealth of Rs. 41,41,000/- but has subsequently been revised under Section 35 on net wealth of Rs. 2,38,000/- by reduction of Land & Building Tax of Rs. 40,62,200/-. However, this assessment dated 15.3.88 was reopened by the Revenue by initiating proceedings under Section 17(2)716(3) of the WT Act while issuing notice to the assessee (petitioner) to show cause as to why additions/disallowances on the following points be not made in his wealth:- 1. Land and building tax liability of Rs. 40,62,000/- wrongly allowed as it relates to the assets which is already claimed and allowed as exempted assets hence not admissible as per provisions of Rule 2(m). 2. Value of land requisitioned by the defence on annual compensation was not included in the net wealth due to claim of wrong exemption under Section 5(1)(iii). 3. Annual compensation received/receivable by the assessee on the said land as per point (2) above." After hearing the parties, net wealth of the assessee (petitioner) was computed as under: JUDGEMENT_741_ITR261_2003Html1.htm Upon aforesaid computation and assessment of the net wealth under order dated 27.3.97 (Ann. 6) by the respondent No. 2, notice under Section 17(1)(c)/18(2) of the WT Act was ordered to be issued. Hence this writ petition. Though the petitioner accepted that an appeal against assessment order impugned herein had been filed but it is his case that since the impugned order was without jurisdiction, it has been challenged in this writ petition, inasmuch as the issuance of notice under Section 17 of the WT Act without subsisting any ground was bad. Show cause notice for admission of this petition was issued on 30.9.97 to the respondents (Union of India & Assistant Commissioner WT Circle Kola) who were served. But upon application for impleadment moved on 2.11.98, this Court by order , dated 18.3.99 allowed the Income Tax Officer (I) Kota to be impleaded as respondent No. 3, on whose behalf reply to the writ petition has been filed on 7.4.99, to which rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention that on 29.4.99 application for amendment in the writ petition by annexing therewith notices dated 25.3.99 for the years 1986 to 1996 as Schedule B was moved by the petitioner but curiously enough, as is evident from this Court's order dated 18.9,2000, this amendment application was sought-on behalf of the petitioner to be withdrawn and this Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw this amendment application.
(3.) SHRI J.K. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner assessee contended that the assessment for the year 1983-84 had been completed on 15.3.88 granting benefits of the Board's circular (Ann. 2) so also Section 5(1)(iii) of the WT Act but subsequently the respondent No. 2 reopened the assessment and passed order dated 27.3.97 (Ann. 6) illegally by erroneously interpreting order (Ann. 2) on the ground of putting Ummed Bhawan tend to other use, and without considering that it was not voluntarily but the disputed Bhawan was put to other use i.e. for defence purpose, as such the reassessment order (Ann. 6) is liable to be quashed. Per contra, Sarva Shri R.B. Mathur & Ashok Gaur appearing for the Revenue (WT & IT departments) laid much stress on the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner against the impugned reassessment order and further it has been contended that admittedly the petitioner has concomitantly preferred an appeal against the self same reassessment order (Ann. 6) before the Commissioner (Appeals) Wealth Tax Ajmer who had remanded the matter for fresh decision while setting aside impugned order, itself, and since the matter is sub judice before the respondent No. 2 thereby this writ petition is an illusory attempt having no cause of action to approach- this Court, inasmuch as there being disputed questions of fact involved in this petition, the same cannot be agitated in this petition by invoking writ jurisdiction. Various decisions have been cited in this regard. As regards challenge to the impugned assessment order so also the petitioner's claim for exemption, it has been contended by the Revenue that the exemption from WT as contemplated under Section 5(1)(iii) of WT Act is only for any one building in possession of a Ruler, and the Wealth Tax in case of the petitioner as Ex Ruler had been levied on the parts of the building which has admittedly been let out by the Ruler on receipt of its compensation, inasmuch as the decisions cited by the petitioner in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Mohd Ali Khan v. Commissioner of WT (1), goes against him if it Is carefully looked into because as per which only the building or its part in occupation of the Ruler which has been declared by the Central Government as official residence under the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949 will not be included in the net wealth of the assessee. ;