1990 (6) TMI 48 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
Whether outstanding professional fees should be considered as an asset for wealth tax assessment.
Whether an alternative claim regarding income-tax liability and bad debts should be allowed.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference at the instance of the Department regarding the treatment of outstanding professional fees as an asset in the net wealth of the assessee, who is an architect. The assessee and a partnership firm, in which the assessee was a partner, maintained their books of account on the cash method of accountancy, not showing outstanding fees in their balance sheet. The Wealth-tax Officer contended that outstanding professional fees should be included in the net wealth of the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, following a precedent from the Orissa High Court, ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that outstanding professional fees should not be considered as an asset. The Tribunal upheld this decision.

The Tribunal referred the question of law to the High Court under the Wealth-tax Act, seeking clarification on whether outstanding professional fees should be included in the computation of the net wealth of the assessee. The High Court, after considering a similar case, held that outstanding professional fees are indeed includible as an asset in the net wealth of the assessee, regardless of the method of accountancy. However, the court noted that the assessee's alternative claim regarding income-tax liability and bad debts had not been adequately addressed in the previous proceedings. The court directed that the claim should be reconsidered based on the existing record or additional material that may be presented before the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the High Court answered the question of law in the affirmative, stating that outstanding professional fees are to be considered as an asset for wealth tax assessment. The court also allowed the assessee the opportunity to press the alternative claim regarding income-tax liability and bad debts, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of this claim based on the available evidence. The judgment did not award any costs.