9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of section 5(1)(xviia) of the Wealth-tax Act in relation to the exemption for a Hindu undivided family's provident fund deposit.
Analysis: The judgment pertains to the assessment year 1982-83 and the interpretation of section 5(1)(xviia) of the Wealth-tax Act regarding the exemption for a Hindu undivided family's provident fund deposit. The Revenue contested the exemption claimed by the assessee for Rs. 1,50,000 deposited in a provident fund account in the name of a Hindu undivided family member. The Wealth-tax Officer denied the exclusion under section 5(1)(xviia) on the basis that the clause only mentions "individual." However, the Appellate Tribunal, citing a Supreme Court decision, opined that the term "individual" could encompass a group of individuals, including a Hindu undivided family. This interpretation was challenged by the Revenue, arguing that the Act distinguishes between "individual," "Hindu undivided family," and "company" under different clauses of section 5(1). The crux of the debate revolves around the interpretation of the term "individual" in section 5(1)(xviia) and whether it extends to cover a Hindu undivided family. The Revenue contended that since the clause specifically mentions "individual," the benefit cannot be extended to a Hindu undivided family, even if the provident fund was created by the family's contribution. Conversely, the assessee's counsel relied on the broader scope of section 5(1) and argued that assets falling under any enumerated clause should be excluded from the net wealth of the assessee. The judgment delves into the legislative intent behind the Wealth-tax Act, emphasizing the assessment of an assessee's net wealth and the exemptions provided under section 5(1). The court analyzed the provisions of the Act to determine the applicability of the exemption for the provident fund deposit belonging to a Hindu undivided family. It highlighted that the charge under section 3 encompasses the net wealth of an assessee, with assets specified under section 5(1) being exempted from inclusion in the net wealth calculation. The court reasoned that if a provident fund account is owned by a Hindu undivided family member, it should be excluded under section 5(1)(xviia) as an asset of the individual. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in WTO v. C. K. Mammed Kayi, the court emphasized that the term "individual" can encompass groups like a Hindu undivided family, aligning with the legislative intent of wealth taxation. In conclusion, the court sided with the Appellate Tribunal's interpretation, affirming that the provident fund deposit of a Hindu undivided family member should be exempted under section 5(1)(xviia). The judgment underscores the inclusive nature of the term "individual" and its application to entities like Hindu undivided families within the framework of the Wealth-tax Act.
|
