2003 (4) TMI 87 - HC - Wealth-tax

(i) Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that flat, and hotel site did not belong to the assessee within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act and hence could not be assessed, as such in his hands merely on the ground that these have not been transferred in his name particularly when the assessee had made full consideration of the value of the property but did not get it transferred intentionally/otherwise and had also subsequently declared it as an asset in his wealth-tax return for the AY 1995-96 under similar circumstances ? - (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the flat and hotel did not belong to the assessee within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, and hence could not be assessed, as such in his hands merely on the ground that these have not been transferred, in his name particularly when the assessee had made full or partial consideration of the value of the properties and the value of such consideration so made, in the alternate, is liable to be included in his net wealth? - In our opinion, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the flat, the plot and the hotel site did not belong to the assessee are based on a correct appreciation of evidence and none of the questions framed by the appellant can be treated as a substantial question of law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether certain properties belonged to the assessee within the meaning of the Wealth-tax Act.
2. Assessment of wealth-tax on properties not transferred in the name of the assessee but where consideration was made.
3. Interpretation of the term "belonging to" under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the question of whether properties, specifically a flat in Reviera Apartments, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi, and a hotel site in Chandigarh, belonged to the assessee for wealth-tax assessment purposes. The Tribunal considered evidence of payment and possession but noted the absence of a registered sale deed. Citing relevant legal precedents, including Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan v. CWT, the Tribunal concluded that mere possession without ownership did not constitute assets "belonging" to the assessee under the Act. Therefore, the properties were deemed not to belong to the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

2. Regarding the assessment of wealth-tax on properties where consideration was made but not transferred in the name of the assessee, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of ownership and dominion over assets. The judgment highlighted the distinction between ownership and belonging under the Wealth-tax Act, emphasizing that liability to pay wealth-tax arises from assets belonging to the assessee. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the legal framework and relevant case law, ultimately concluding that the properties in question did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the assessee's net wealth.

3. The interpretation of the term "belonging to" under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act was a crucial aspect of the judgment. Drawing on legal principles and precedents, including CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal clarified that the liability to pay wealth-tax is contingent on assets belonging to the assessee. By examining the specific circumstances of the case and applying established legal interpretations, the Tribunal determined that the properties under consideration did not fall within the definition of assets "belonging" to the assessee. This interpretation guided the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal and uphold the lower authorities' findings on the wealth-tax assessment of the properties in question.