Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
H.H. Bhawani Singh (Individual), New ... vs Assessee on 30 September, 2010
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH "C" NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA
W.T.A. Nos. 49 to 54/Del/2010
Assessment Years: 2002-03 to 2007-08
H.H. Bhawani Singh (Individual), Vs. Asst.Commissioner of WT,
B-15, Maharini Bagh, Circle 22(1),
New Delhi. New Delhi
(PAN: ABAPS5843A)
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Shri Anil Bhalla, CA
Respondent by: Shri Rajni Kant Gupta, CIT(DR)
ORDER
PER BENCH:
The present six appeals are directed at the instance of assessee against the separate orders of Learned CWT(Appeals) dated 30.09.2010 passed in assessment years 2002-03 up to 2007-08. The grounds of appeals taken by the assessee in each year are verbatim same. For the facility of reference, we are taking up the grounds from assessment year 2002-03 which read as under:
"1. The learned CWT(Appeals) has erred on the facts and law of the case and in the case assessing the value of immovable property at Rs.6,39,10,92,000/-. No justification on the basis of arrival and no details of addition have been provided.2
2. The learned CWT(Appeals) has erred on the facts and law of the case and in the case assessing the Dynasty Jewellery at Rs.9,00,00,000/-. No reason or cause of addition has been mentioned.
3. The learned CWT(Appeals) has erred on the facts and law of the case and in the case assessing the value of jewellery at Rs.3,59,71,984/-. No justification on the basis of arrival and no details of addition have been provided.
4. The learned CWT(Appeals) has erred on the facts and law of the case and in the case assessing wealth outside India at Rs.16,18,420/-.
5. The learned CWT(Appeals) has erred on the facts and law of the case and in the case assessing the value of fixed deposit of Rs.5 lakhs. There is no justification on the basis of arrival and no details of addition have been provided.
6. That any consequential relief to which in the assessee may be entitled under the foregoing ground of appeal may be granted to the assessee.
7. That the appellant may be allowed to vary or add to the foregoing grounds of appeal, if it becomes necessary to do so in the interest of justice."3
2. The learned counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the dispute about inheritance of the properties between various claimanent is pending in a civil suit before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The decision of civil proceedings would effect the determination of net wealth in the hands of present assessee as well as other assessees. The similar issues have come up before the ITAT in assessment years 1978-79 to 1984-85, 1987-88 to 1995-96, 1997-98 and 1998-99 in WTA Nos. 39 to 56/Del/03. All these appeals have been allowed for statistical purposes and the disputes have been restored to the file of the Learned CWT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication. He placed on record the copy of the ITAT's order dated 27.5.2004 which was passed on these appeals amongst others. The ITAT has decided a bunch of 32 appeals vide this order. The learned counsel for the assessee further pointed out that in assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, ITAT has decided ITA Nos. 856 and 857/Del/03. The ITAT has again set aside the issue to the file of the Learned CWT(Appeals). The ITAT while doing so, followed the interim order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in a reference. He placed on record copy of the ITAT's order dated 5.5.2005. On the strength of these orders, he contended that the issue be set aside to the file of the Learned CWT(Appeals). Learned DR was unable to controvert the contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee.
43. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. We find that the facts and circumstances are identical between earlier years and these years. The ITAT in its order dated 5.5.2005 passed on 30 appeals in different assessment years belonging to different assessees has discussed the facts and circumstances as under:
" These 30 appeals under the Income tax Act by various assessees of late Maharaja Man Singh, group of cases of Jaipur, involve common issues and, therefore, these are disposed of through this consolidated order.
2. That appellant assessees involved in these appeals are bigger HUF of late Sir Sawai Man Singh, smaller HUF of Lt.Col.Bhawani Singh as well as Lt.Co.Bhawani Singh in his individual capacity. On behalf of the assessee Shri Anil Bhalla, CA appeared and filed common paper book pointing out that Tribunal in the following orders have set aside orders of CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication:
1. WTA No.518 and 407/Del/94 dated 18.2.2002 H.H.Bhiwani Singh, New Delhi.
2. WTA Nos.223 to 226/Del/1990 & Ors. dated 9.7.1990 Late HH Sir Sawai Man Singh (HUF) New Delhi. And Ors.
and Ors.
54. ITA Nos.1832 to 1836/Del/90 dated 29.4.2004 H.H.Lt.Co.Bhawani Singh (smaller HUF).
He requested that similar course be adopted in all the above appeals. Copies of aforesaid orders of Tribunal have been placed in the paper book.
3. The brief facts of the case are that H.H.Maharaja Sawai Man Singh, the erstwhile Maharaja of Jaipur who ruled the Jaipur state as its Maharaja died intestate on 24.6.1970. Late Maharaja had two wives - Maharani Kishori Kumari and Maharani Gayatri Devi. Late Maharaja is survived by four sons namely Col.Bhawani Singh, Maharaja Jai Singh, Maharaja Prithvi Raj and Maharaja Jagat Singhy. Late Maharaja had a daughter, Smt.Prem Kumar, who pre-deceased the Maharaja leaving his daughter Smt.Urvashi Devi. Col.Bhawani Singh filed returns under the Income-tax Act/Wealth-tax Act in the status of HUF claiming that entire estate of the deceased Maharaja belonged to the HUF after his demise and that Col.Bhawani Singh was its karta. The Revenue, on the other hand took the stand that the estate belonged to late Maharaja as an individual and after his death all his six heirs inherited the estate in their individual capacities. The matter went upto the Tribunal and the Tribunal held vide its order dated 24.12.1979 for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 that correct status is HUF upto the period 1970. Subsequently, the Tribunal vide its order dated 4.4.1986 for assessment year 1971-72 to 1977-78 held in the case of Maharaja Prithvi Raj, smaller HUF that no partition of bigger HUF took place and the HUF be deemed to 6 continue to be in existence after the death of H.H.Maharaja Sawai Man Singh. Subsequently, Col.Bhawani Singh claimed that entire estate of late Maharaja devolved upon him in his individual capacity on the basis of rule of primogeniture and same be assessed in his hands as an individual. The department in fact accepted this stand and has assessed entire income and wealth comprising the estate of late H.H.Maharaja Sawai Man Singh in the individual assessment of late Col.Bhawani Singh on protective basis, as also in the hands of smaller HUF by way of abundant precaution. It is relevant to mention that dispute relating to estate left by Late H.H.Maharaja Sawai Man Singh was also subject matter of litigation before Delhi High Court and their Lordships vide order dated 14.7.1992 observed as under:
"It is in the Civil Court that question of title are being urged. Evidence will be led and the Court will have to decide as to whom did the property belong before merger, after merger and after the death of Man Singh. The jurisdiction of this Court while hearing a reference u/s 256(1) is limited to the facts as stated in the statement of the case. On the basis of the facts as stated the conclusion which may be arrived at while deciding these reference may ultimately be contrary to the decision which may be arrived at by the Civil Court on the question of title to the property. This is bound to give rise to various complications. As far as the department is concerned, it is making protective asstt. on all possible assessees. The revenue of the department is, therefore, secured. The various assessees are busy fighting with each other in the Civil Court. In order 7 that the dispute pending in the Civil Court is in no way jeopardize by any decision in these references and also in order that there may be no conflict of the decision, it would be appropriate, in our opinion, that these references are adjourned sine die with the direction that they may be taken up for hearing after the Civil Suit being Suit No.870/86 entitled Maharaja Jagat Singh & Ors. Vs. Lt.Co. Bhawani Singh & Ors. which is pending in this Court is finally decided."
In the light of above directions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 9.7.1990 in WTA Nos.223 to 226/Del/1990 for assessment years: 1979-80, 1980-81, 1982-83 and 1983-84 restored the matter to the file of the learned CWT(Appeals). Other Benches have passed similar orders in other assessment years.
4. In the light of aforesaid facts and respectfully following earlier orders of the Tribunal, we set aside impugned order of learned first appellate authority and restore the issue to his file for a fresh adjudication, after the decision of Civil Suit as well as the Departmental Reference by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Various issues arising in the appeals be considered afresh and in accordance with law.
5. In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose only."
84. Respectfully following the order of the ITAT, we allow all these appeals and set aside the issues to the file of Learned First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with the orders of the ITAT, extracted supra.
5. In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Decision pronounced in the open court on 3 .02.2011 ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 3 /02/2011 Mohan Lal Copy forwarded to:
1) Appellant
2) Respondent
3) CIT
4) CIT(Appeals)
5) DR:ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR