WEALTH TAX OFFICER VS RAM DEEN SINGH
2001 P T D 2530
[248 I T R 6681
[Allahabad High Court (India)]
Before M. C. Agarwal and S. Rafat Alam, JJ
WEALTH TAX OFFICER
versus
RAM DEEN SINGH
W.T.R. No.313 of 1981, decided on 15/10/1999.
Wealth tax---
----Reference---Net wealth ---HUF---Asset of individual or HUF---Inclusion .of value of agricultural land in net wealth of individual---Finding by AAC that land belonged to HUF---Deletion by AAC of two more additions resulting in net wealth below taxable limit---Inclusion of agricultural land would not result in any taxable wealth---Question referred academic-- Returned unanswered---Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Ss.5 & 27.
The assessee's net wealth, in the assessment year 1971-72, included the value of agricultural land at Rs.1,95,000. The assessee's contention before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was that the agricultural land did not belong to him as an individual but was the property of his Hindu undivided family. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the contention and also deleted the additions of Rs.70,000 and Rs.68,680 which related to investment in money-lending business and cash and ornaments. By that exclusion, the net wealth of the assessee fell below the taxable limit. Hence; the order of assessment was quashed by the Commissioner and this had been upheld by the Tribunal. On a reference:
Held, that since the Revenue had not challenged the Tribunal's finding about the investment in money-lending business, cash and ornaments, the inclusion of the value of the agricultural land would not result in any taxable wealth and the net wealth, after exemption under section 5 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, would be below the taxable limits
[Since the question referred was of mere academic interest, the Court declined to answer it and returned it answered].
Prakash Krishna for the Commissioner:
Bharat Ji Agarwal for the Assessee.
JUDGMENT
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has stated a case and referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the agricultural land in village Kotia Tehsil Bindki, District Fatehpur, belonged to the undivided family of the assessee and not to the assessee in his individual capacity?"
We have heard Shri Prakash Krishna, learned counsel for the Commissioner, and Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal, senior Advocate for the assessee respondent.
The assessee is an individual and an assessment on him under the Wealth Tax Act, was trade for the assessment year 1971-72 as an individual. The total wealth was determined at Rs.1,91,680. In that year net wealth up to Rs.1,50,000 was not taxable. The net wealth of the assessee included agricultural land valued at Rs.1,95,000, which according to the assessee, did not belong to him as an individual but was the property of his Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his two sons and wife. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who held that the agricultural land was the property of the aforesaid Hindu undivided family. He also held that the investment in money-lending business (Rs.70,000) cash and ornaments (Rs.68,680) which were, included in the net wealth of the assessee, did not belong to him as an individual and belonged to the Hindu undivided family. By the exclusion of the aforesaid assets, the net wealth of the assessee fell below the taxable limit and, therefore, the learned Commissioner quashed the assessment. This has been upheld by the Tribunal.
The Revenue has not challenged the Tribunal's finding about the investment in money-lending business, cash and ornaments. Since these items stand excluded from the net wealth of the assessee, the inclusion of agricultural land would not result in any taxable wealth and the net wealth after exemption under section 5 of the Act, would be below the taxable limit.
Therefore, in view of the other findings of the Tribunal, the question that has been referred for the opinion of this Court is merely of academic interest. We, therefore, decline to answer the same. The reference is returned unanswered.
M.B.A./964/FCAnswer declined.