1992 (1) TMI 93 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of income-tax refunds as an asset for net wealth valuation on the valuation date.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a reference made by the Tribunal under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, regarding the inclusion of income-tax refunds as an asset for net wealth valuation on the valuation date. The question of law referred to the High Court was whether income-tax refunds determined after the valuation date should be considered as an asset for inclusion in the net wealth on the valuation date. The assessee, a director of a company, claimed substantial income-tax refunds on account of taxes deducted at source, which had not been determined or quantified on the valuation date. The Tribunal held that these refunds could be considered as actionable claims and were includible in the net wealth.

The High Court referred to decisions by the Rajasthan High Court and the Gujarat High Court, which held that the mere possibility of receiving an income-tax refund in the future should not be considered an asset on the valuation date. It was noted that the future possibility of a refund represented a mere chance to acquire an asset in the future, which could not be treated as an asset on the valuation date due to uncertainty regarding the actual amount of the refund. However, the Supreme Court has held that tax liability as finally assessed, despite uncertainty at the valuation date, should be considered as an allowable debt on the valuation date.

The judgment highlighted a distinction in cases where income-tax refunds arise from excess advance tax paid or excess tax deducted at source. In such cases, the High Court differed from the views of the Rajasthan and Gujarat High Courts. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, it was established that if the quantification of tax liability results in a refund due to excess advance tax or tax deducted at source, the refund should be considered as an asset on the valuation date. The judgment emphasized that the refund should not relate back if advance tax or tax deducted at source is already included in the computation of net wealth or if the refund arises after the valuation date.

Ultimately, the High Court declined to answer the question directly and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to ascertain the situation in which the refund arises and decide the case based on the guidelines provided in the judgment. The decision was made unanimously by the judges, with no order as to costs.