1995 (11) TMI 21 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act for exemption on factory land and building collectively owned by partners.

Analysis:
The High Court of Rajasthan addressed the issue raised by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the entitlement of the assessee to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act for a factory land and building owned by a partnership firm. The Tribunal referred the question of law to the High Court for interpretation. The assessee argued that the question did not apply to the case as the Wealth-tax Officer disallowed the exemption claim, suggesting a need to reframe the question or seek a fresh statement. The counsel for the assessee also contended that a previous judgment required reconsideration in light of subsequent judgments from other High Courts. However, the Revenue supported the Tribunal's decision, stating that the question referred was the only one arising from the Tribunal's order and did not require reframing. The High Court considered the submissions from both parties.

The first contention raised by the assessee was that the question referred did not arise in the case. However, the High Court clarified that the question was raised by the Revenue and referred to the High Court based on the assessee's application. Therefore, the contention that the question did not apply was dismissed. The next issue raised was regarding the reconsideration of a Division Bench judgment in light of later judgments from other High Courts. The High Court reviewed the Division Bench judgment and concluded that it did not require reconsideration as no subsequent judgments contradicted its findings. The High Court maintained the validity of the Division Bench judgment.

The High Court found that the material facts of the case were similar to a previous case and ruled in line with the earlier judgment. It held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act for the factory land and building collectively owned by the partners. Consequently, the reference was answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The judgment emphasized that the exemption could be granted to the firm as a whole, not to individual partners collectively owning the property. The High Court upheld the decision denying the exemption to the assessee in this case.