DR. MRS. MARY KOSHY VS COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
1999 P T D 945
[232 I T R 81 ]
[Kerala High Court (India)]
Before V. V. Kamat and K. Narayana Kurup, JJ
Dr. Mrs. MARY KOSHY and others
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
Income-tax References Nos.57 and 58 of 1991, decided on 06/09/1996.
Wealth tax---
Asset---Decree---Is an asset and is transferable property having money value---Is to be included as an asset on respective valuation dates for purposes of wealth tax---Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, S.2(e).
A decree is an asset and it is transferable property which has a money value and, therefore, it has to be estimated in terms of money value to be included as an asset on the respective valuation dates for the purposes of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
CWT v. Reghubar Narain Singh (1984) 146 ITR 228 (SC) and CWT v. Maharaja Kumar Kamal Singh (1984) 146 ITR 202 (SC) ref.
P. Balachandran for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner.
JUDGMENT
V.V. KAMAT, J.--- These are references under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and with regard to the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, respectively. The questions that expect our answer are as follows:--
"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal was right in adopting the valuation as determined in its order for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 in respect of the decree obtained by the assessee in O. S. No. 10 of 1958 of the Mayelikkara sub-Court?
(2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal had materials to come to the conclusion that the value adopted at Rs.7,61,642 for the assessment year 1970-71 and Rs.9,46,318 for the assessment year 1971-72 was proper, in view of the various litigation proceedings pending before the Courts, and specially in view of the fact that the applicant was unable to execute the decree?"
A bare reading of the statement of case would show that on identical questions the same Tribunal had referred the matter to this Court in regard to R.As. Nos.240 to 243/Coch of 1977-78 in regard to the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70.
The questions are already taken up and decided by this Court in I.T.Rs. Nos.283 to 286 of 1982 in regard to R.As. Nos.240 to 243 referred to above, by the judgment of this Court, dated February 23, 1989. A copy of the said judgment has been made available to us by learned Senior Standing Counsel for taxes. The basic question is taken up for consideration by this Court to conclude the position once and for all. It is not a coincidence that the proceedings of the suit involved there is the same suit being O. S. No. 10 of 1958 of the Mavelikkara sub-Court. Therein also the Wealth Tax Officer held that the decree is an asset includible in the computation of net wealth on the valuation dates. In the said judgment, this Court has observed that it cannot be doubted that the decree is an asset and that it is a, transferable property which has a money value and therefore, it has to be estimated in terms of money value to be included as an asset on the respective valuation dates. It is also observed that the Tribunal therein also took into consideration the vicissitudes of the litigation and the imponderables involved on the respective dates when the High Court and the Supreme Court decided the matter and fixed different values for the asset on the different valuation dates reckoning the above aspects. In the process of reasoning, this Court has observed that the valuation of the asset that is the decree obtained by the assessee was determined by the Tribunal after reckoning the realities of the situation and on an appraisal of all the relevant factors. This Court therein placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Maharaja Kumar Kamal Singh (1984) 146 ITR 202 and CWT v. Raghubar Narain Singh (1984) 146 ITR 228 and concluded that no question of law could be said to have arisen on the facts and circumstances of the case because it need hardly be emphasized that the market value of an asset is a question of fact. All that occurs in the present reference is the same situation with regard to the same proceedings but with regard to subsequent assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 with no other difference as regards the factual matrix. In the above circumstances a different course is not at all open to us.
Before parting with this judgment we must record that when the matter reached before us on September 3, 1996, the assessee was not represented, We found from the print that Shri P. Balachandran had appeared for the assessee before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to ask for the reference of the questions. Coincidentally the learned Advocate was present in the Court room. We requested him, therefore, to assist as amicus curiae. The learned Advocate has taken the trouble for which we express our thanks.
For the above reasons, we answer the questions in the affirmative against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
A copy of this judgment under the seal of this Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
M.B.A./1869/FC ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Reference answered.