WTR No.1 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH WTR No.1 of 2005 DATE OF DECISION: March 29, 2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, PATIALA ...PETITIONER VERSUS SHRI KARANBIR SINGH ETC. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. PRESENT: MR. J.K. BEDWAL, ADVOCATE FOR MS. URVASHI DUGGA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. MINAKSHI DOGRA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question of law for adjudication by this Court:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the amount of enhanced compensation and interest thereon received in May, 1986 in consequence of judgement of District Judge and the amount having been utilized/invested in the discretion of the assessee, was not includible in the net wealth of the assessee?” The return was filed by the assessee in the status of HUF declaring his net wealth of Rs.5,40,000/- for the assessment year 1986-87. The Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, noted WTR No.1 of 2005 -2- that the assessee had received enhanced amount of compensation and interest amounting to Rs.23,10,000/- in May, 1986 in respect of agricultural land acquired by the Punjab State Electricity Board in the year 1962. Accordingly, the aforementioned amount of Rs.23,10,000/- was added in the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. The case of the assessee before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) was that since the aforementioned amount of Rs.23,10,000/- had been received in May 1986, i.e. after the valuation dated 31.3.1986, hence the same could not be added in his net wealth for the assessment year 1986-87. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) held that the aforementioned amount could not be added in the return for the years 1986- 87. An appeal was filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal which has been dismissed wherein the Tribunal held that the amount of enhanced compensation was disputed by the State and the assessee as such was not includible in the net wealth of the assessee. After going through the aforementioned facts, we are of the considered opinion that as the compensation was received by the assessee in May 1986, i.e. after the valuation dated 31.3.1986, hence this amount could not be included for the assessment year 1986-87. Resultantly, the reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE March 29, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) Gulati JUDGE