COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS GYANCHAND JAIN
1993 P T D 577
[198 ITR 90]
[Patna High Court (India)]
Before G. C. Bharuka and S.K Chattopadhyaya, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
versus
GYANCHAND JAIN
Tax Cases Nos.19 to 22 of 1981, decided on 16/04/1992.
(a) Wealth tax---
----Assets---Additions made to income in Income-tax proceedings---Amounts can be included in net wealth unless it is found that it was not available with the assessee on the relevant valuation date---Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Ss. 2(m).
The intangible additions made in the income-tax assessment of an assessee are part of his real income and are includible in the net wealth of the assessee on the relevant valuation dates in view of the provisions of section 2(e) and (m) of the Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, unless it was found that the intangible additions were not available with the assessee on the relevant valuation dates.
CWT v. Mishrilal Jain (1986) 161 ITR 583 (Pat.) and CIT v. Mishrilal Jain (1990) 182 ITR 230 (Pat.) fol.
(b) Wealth tax---
----Reference---Question of fact---Can be raised only before Tribunal-- Question neither raised before nor considered by Tribunal---Cannot be considered by High Court---Question whether amount of intangible additions made in Income-tax assessments had been included in wealth tax return neither raised before nor considered by Tribunal---Question could not be considered by High Court---Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, S.27.
The question whether the intangible additions had already been included by the assessee himself in his wealth tax returns for the relevant periods was actually a question of fact and could have been raised only before the fact finding authorities and the Tribunal constituted under the Act. Since there was neither any consideration nor any finding in this respect, the question could not be considered by the High Court.
K.K. Vidyarthi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner.
K.N. Jain, L.K. Bajla, M.K. Chaudhry and R.K. Saha with him for the Assessee.
JUDGMENT
G.C. BHARUKA and S.K. CHATTOPADHYAYA, JJ.---These four references under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), relate to the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76.
The only question of law which has fallen for our consideration is as follows:---
"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the intangible additions made in income-tax proceedings could be treated as the assets of the assessee for the purpose of wealth tax assessment in the light of the provisions of sections 2(e) and 2(m) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957?
The facts may be stated in short. During the assessment years prior to the assessment year 1972-73, a total sum of Rs.23,59,461 was added to the income of the assessee as intangible additions in the income-tax proceedings which have attained their finality. On that basis, the Wealth Tax Officer made addition of these intangible additions in the determination of net wealth under the Act treating it to be part of the taxable wealth available in the hands 6f the assessee on the valuation dates, which fell on March 31 of each year. This view was .taken by the Wealth Tax Officer because the assessee had failed to prove that the amounts added to the income as intangible additions were not in fact available with the assessee on the respective valuation dates.
Aggrieved by the order of the Wealth Tax Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but could not get any relief. Accordingly, he preferred a second appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following its earlier order for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72, deleted the addition. This Court, pursuant to a reference made at the instance of the Revenue in respect of those years, considered the legality of such additions. The question referred was the same as in the present references. A Division Bench of. this Court in the case of this very assessee as reported in CWT v. Mishrilal Jain (1986) 161 ITR 583, held that the intangible additions made in the income-tax assessment of an assessee are part of his real income and are includible in the net wealth of the assessee on the relevant valuation dates in view of the provisions of sections 2(e) and 2(m) of the Act, unless it was found that the intangible additions were not available with the assessee on the relevant valuation dates. This view was again followed by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of this very assessee relating to the assessment year 1976-77, which is reported in CIT v. Mishrilal Jain (1990) 182 ITR 230. Following these decisions, we respectfully agree with the view taken therein and answer the question referred to this Court in the affirmative and against the assessee.
Before parting with the judgment, we may notice here that Mr. K.N. Jain, appearing for the assessee, has submitted that the intangible additions made under the income-tax proceedings during the assessment years, referred to above, has already been included by the assessee himself in his wealth tax returns for the relevant periods covered by these references and, therefore, it was not permissible on the part of the wealth tax authorities to add the value of same assets twice.
In our opinion, this is actually a question of fact and could have been raised only before the fact finding authorities and the Tribunal constituted under the Act. Since there is neither any consideration nor any finding in this respect, we are unable to express any opinion on this issue. It is well-settled that, after pronouncement of judgment by the High Court, the appeals have to be disposed of afresh by the Tribunal keeping in view the legal opinion.
We are sure that, if the facts as asserted by learned counsel for the assessee are found to be correct, then, keeping in view the requirement of justice, the Tribunal will give due consideration to this aspect of the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
Let a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna.
M.BA./2034/TReference answered.