1991 (8) TMI 54 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of sections 2(m), 4(1)(b), and 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 regarding exemption admissibility for property held by the assessee in partnership firms.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of GAUHATI involved three wealth-tax references concerning the interpretation of sections 2(m), 4(1)(b), and 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The court consolidated the references as the legal questions were identical. The first reference, No. 20 of 1985, dealt with an assessee's claim for deduction under section 5(1)(xxvi) for his share in a firm's fixed deposit. The Wealth-tax Officer rejected the claim, but it was allowed by the appellate authority and the Tribunal. In reference No. 21 of 1985, the assessee sought exemption under section 5(1)(iv) for his share in the firm's house property and fixed deposit, which was initially denied by the Wealth-tax Officer but later allowed by the appellate authority and the Tribunal. Reference No. 22 of 1985 involved partners of two firms where the Wealth-tax Officer included their interest in the firms but did not grant exemption under section 5(1)(iv). Both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld the assessee's contention.

The key question referred under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act was whether exemption under section 5(1)(iv) was admissible for the property held by the assessee in question. The court noted that the legal question was the same across references, even though the wordings varied slightly. The court appreciated the assistance of learned counsel for the Revenue and Dr. M. K. Sarma, who assisted the court in the absence of the assessee's representation.

The court referred to a previous decision in CWT v. Tarachand Agarwalia, where a similar legal question was addressed. The court analyzed the nature of a partner's interest in partnership assets, considering relevant sections of the Act and previous judicial interpretations. The court held that a partner's interest in immovable property should be included in computing net wealth and was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv). The court also discussed the method of deduction in computing the net wealth of the firm, emphasizing that the deduction should be given in the hands of the assessee, not the firm itself.

Ultimately, the court upheld the decisions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, allowing the claims of the assessee and rejecting the Revenue's contentions. The court answered all questions in favor of the assessee, affirming the admissibility of exemption under section 5(1)(iv) for the property held by the assessee in the partnership firms.