WTR No. 7 of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. WTR No. 7 of 1998 Date of decision 20.1.2009 Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Patiala ...Petitioner Versus Shri Amarinder Singh(individual) ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga ,Advocate for the revenue. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. At the instance of the Revenue the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (Chandigarh) (for brevity 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question of law for adjudication which is stated to have emerged out of its order dated 5.9.1997 rendered in WTA No. 270/92 in respect of assessment year 1985-86: “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in law in holding 3/4th of the value of properties consisting of agricultural land at Chail and New Moti Bagh Palace, Patiala, was assessable in the hands of the HUF and 1/4th in the hands of legal heir and that nothing was assessable in the hands of the assessee as 'individual' ?” At the outset learned counsel for the revenue has pointed out that same question of law in respect of the same assessee has arisen before this Court in WTA No.5 of 2001 which has been decided on 24.8.2004. The WTR No. 7 of 1998 2 afore-mentioned appeal has been preferred against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh passed in WTA No. 109/Chandi/94. The basic dispute in this matter is about the nature of the property held by Maharaja Yadvindra Singh father of the present assessee Amarinder Singh and his right to alienate the same. The dispute had arisen for the first time in gift tax assessment of late Maharaja Yadvindra Singh for the assessment year 1971-72. The matter came up before the Tribunal in GTA Nos. 19 and 20 of 1979 which were decided on 25.10.1982. The Tribunal had held that the immovable property of Maharaja Yadvindra Singh and the Privy Purse received by him formed part of impartible estate inherited by him and thus belonged to his Hindu Undivided Family and that alienations made by him out of the said property were either invalid or in the nature of family arrangement not attracting any Gift Tax. The matter travelled to this Court and in GTR No. 1 of 1983 decided on 20.5.2004 the view of the Tribunal was upheld by holding that the immoveable property of Maharaja Yadindra singh form part of the impartible estate inherited by him and belong to his Hindu Undivided family. It was further held that since the impartible estate had continued to exist even after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Maharaja Yadvindra Singh, the holder had absolute power to alienate the said property as none of the members of the Hindu Undivided Family had either right to claim partition or the right to restrain alienations made by him at the stage of partition. This Court further held that the privy Purse did not form part of the impartible estate and thus was the individual property of Late Maharaja Yadvindra Singh. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in WTR No. 7 of 1998 3 the light of these findings. In view of the above, the issue raised in this appeal also needs to be decided afresh in the light of the findings contained in the order dated 20.5.2004 recorded in GTR No. 1 of 1983. Respectfully following the view taken in WTA No.5 of 2001 we set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter back to it for fresh adjudication in the light of the aforesaid observations. The question of law is accordingly decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (H.S. Bhalla ) 20.1.2009 Judge okg