1990 (4) TMI 18 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of whether business activities represent the Hindu undivided family.
2. Inclusion of investments in business activities in the net wealth of the Hindu undivided family.
3. Validity of Tribunal's findings on inclusion of business assets.
4. Identification of material supporting investment in business activities.
5. Determination of the karta's wealth inclusion in the net wealth.
6. Consideration of various additions as assets for wealth calculation.
7. Ownership and inclusion of seized cash and valuables in net wealth.
8. Interpretation of valuables as assets under the Wealth-tax Act.
9. Admission of additional plea for residential property valuation.
10. Consideration of statutory deduction for the residential house.

Analysis:

The application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act sought the High Court's direction to refer several questions to the Tribunal for opinion. The questions primarily revolved around the determination of whether the business activities conducted by specific individuals were representative of the Hindu undivided family and the inclusion of related investments in the family's net wealth. The Tribunal had previously declined similar questions for the previous assessment year, and the court had rejected a petition in that regard. The assessee argued that additional material could alter the Tribunal's decision, but the court found the reasons for refusing the additional evidence relevant, particularly noting the delayed submission of such evidence, leading to the dismissal of the application.

Regarding questions 7 and 8, which related to the ownership and inclusion of seized cash and valuables in the net wealth, the Tribunal had combined these questions and referred them for the court's opinion. However, for questions 9 and 10 concerning the admission of additional pleas for residential property valuation and statutory deductions, the Tribunal clarified that the matter had been remanded for valuation, allowing the assessee to raise these aspects before the Wealth-tax Officer. Consequently, the court found no grounds to direct the referral of these questions, leading to the dismissal of the wealth-tax application.