1996 (1) TMI 77 - HC - Wealth-tax

Application For Rectification, Assessee s Appeal, High Court, Reference Application, Supplementary Statement, Supreme Court

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of beneficiary interest in trusts for assessment years under Wealth-tax Act, 1957.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to reference applications by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax regarding the beneficiary interest of the assessees in two trusts, Lady Kanchan Bai Trust and Sir Hukumchand Trust, for assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84. The Wealth-tax Officer initially assessed the interest in the trusts in the hands of the Hindu undivided family, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the individual assessees. The Supreme Court's subsequent decision in CIT v. Maharaja Bahadur Singh [1986] 162 ITR 343 reversed the earlier decision, prompting the reference applications. The main question was whether the interest in the trusts belonged to the Hindu undivided family or the individual assessee.

The counsel for the Department argued that the Supreme Court's decision should apply, while the counsel for the assessees contended that a declaration dated October 19, 1964, regarding the trusts' beneficial interests being transferred to the Hindu undivided family was not considered by the lower authorities. The Supreme Court's stance was that subsequent declarations did not impact the determination of whether the income belonged to individuals or their families.

The court deliberated on the necessity of a supplementary statement, highlighting that the Tribunal did not consider the Supreme Court decision or the declaration dated October 19, 1964. It emphasized the provision for rectification under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act and the importance of current realities in legal proceedings. The court declined to answer the question at that stage and allowed the Department to seek rectification under section 35, and the assessees to present the declaration for consideration. The Tribunal's discretion was left intact, and parties were given the option to refer appropriate questions in the future.

The judgment concluded by disposing of the reference applications, permitting rectification applications under section 35, and leaving the door open for further references if necessary. The decision was made in the interest of justice, with no costs awarded but setting a fixed counsel fee. The order was to be transmitted to the Tribunal for action, with specific instructions for record-keeping and dissemination of the order copies.