Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Late H.H.Bhawani Singh, New Delhi vs Acwt, Circle-28(1), New Delhi on 8 March, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: "A", NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
WTA No.5/Del/2018
Assessment Year: 2014-15
Late H.H. Bhawani Singh Vs. ACWT,
(Through Smt. Padmini Devi, Circle-28(1), New Delhi
W/o Late H.H. Bhawani
Singh), B-15, Maharani
Bagh, New Delhi.
PAN :ABAPS5843A
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri Anil Bhalla, CA
Respondent by Shri C.P. Singh, Sr.DR
Date of hearing 28.02.2019
Date of pronouncement 08.03.2019
ORDER
PER O.P. KANT, A.M.:
This appeal by the assessee through his legal heir Smt. Padmini Devi has been preferred against the order dated 27/04/2018 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Sie) (Appeals)-31, New Delhi [in short the Ld. CWT(A)] arising out of order of the Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle 28(1), New Delhi [ in short 'the Assessing Officer'] for assessment year 2014-15. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under:
1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred both on the facts and in law in confirming the action of Assessing officer in assessing the value of immovable property at Rs.6,39,10,92,000/-2 WTA No.5/Del/2018
.No justification on the basis of arrival and no details of addition have been provided.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred both on the facts and in law in confirming the action of Assessing officer in assessing the value of dynasty jewellery at Rs.9,00,00,000/-.No reason or cause of addition has been mentioned.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred both on the facts and in law in confirming the action of Assessing officer in assessing the value of jewellery at Rs.5,29,37,864/- by enhancing the value of jewellery by 3,59,71.,984/-.No justification on the basis of arrival and no details of addition have been provided.
4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred both on the facts and in law in confirming the action of Assessing officer for assessing wealth outside India at Rs. 16,18,420/-
5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred both on the facts and in law in confirming the action of Assessing officer for assessing the value of fixed deposit at Rs.5,00,000/- There is no justification on the basis of arrival and no details of addition have been provided.
6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on the facts and in law in confirming the action of assessing officer in not allowing the claim of liabilities against the wealth declared.
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.
2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel of the assessee filed a paper- book containing pages 1 to 58 before us and submitted that the assets which are under consideration in the wealth tax assessment are subject matter of dispute in Hon'ble High Court amongst various family members of Late Sh. Sawai Mansingh, the erstwhile maharaja of Jaipur, who ruled the Jaipur State as its maharaja and died intestate on 24/06/1970. He referred to the copy of civil suit filed before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court for determination of inheritance of various properties, available on page 40 - 58 of the paperbook. The Ld. counsel claimed that as on date said civil suit is pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. According to him the decision of the said proceeding would affect the determination of net wealth in the hands of the 3 WTA No.5/Del/2018 assessee as well as other claimants. He further submitted that the identical issue of determination of the net wealth in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2002-03 to 2007-08 in WTA number 49 to 54 has been restored to the file of the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication after the decision of the civil suit as well as the Departmental reference before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Ld. counsel also filed copy of the decision of the Tribunal for earlier years even up to assessment year 1975-76. In view of these orders, he contended that issue in the year under consideration may also be set-aside to the file of the Ld. first appellate authority.
3. The Ld. DR could not controvert the above contention of the Ld. counsel of the assessee that Tribunal in earlier years has restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
4. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant material on record including the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find that facts and circumstances of the present appeal are identical to the facts mentioned in WTA No. 49 to 54/Del/2010 for assessment year 2002-03 to 2007-08. The Tribunal has restored the matter to the file of the first appellate authority observing as under:
"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 4 WTA No.5/Del/2018 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 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 possible assessees. The revenue of the department is, therefore1, secured. The various assessees are busy fighting with each other in the Civil Court. In order 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."5 WTA No.5/Del/2018
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."
5. In view of the identical facts and same issue in dispute involved, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal (supra), we set aside the issue to the file of the learned first appellate authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with the order of the Tribunal (supra).
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 8th March, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
[H.S. SIDHU] [O.P. KANT]
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 8th March, 2019.
RK/-[d.t.d.s]
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi