9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deductibility of debt owed to Life Insurance Corporation of India from the aggregate value of the assets for computing net taxable wealth. 2. Inclusion of excess advance tax paid as an asset chargeable to wealth-tax. Analysis: Issue 1: Deductibility of Debt Owed to Life Insurance Corporation of India The assessee had obtained a loan of Rs. 28,000 by mortgaging his house and an additional Rs. 24,485 from the Life Insurance Corporation on his life insurance policy. In the wealth-tax proceedings for the year 1974-75, the assessee claimed a deduction for the aggregate sum of Rs. 52,485, arguing that these were debts owed on the valuation date and should be deducted from his net wealth. The Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) rejected this claim, stating that the debts were secured against exempted assets and thus could not be deducted under section 2(m)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act (W.T. Act). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld the WTO's decision, and the Tribunal also negatived the assessee's claim, following its earlier decision for the assessment year 1973-74. The court referred to its earlier decision in Srinivasan v. CWT [1980] 123 ITR 464, which held that loans taken against exempted assets could not be deducted. In agreement with this precedent, the court answered question No. 1 in the affirmative and against the assessee. Issue 2: Inclusion of Excess Advance Tax Paid as an Asset Chargeable to Wealth-Tax The assessee had paid an excess advance tax of Rs. 11,676, which the WTO included in his net wealth. The assessee contended before the AAC that the excess advance tax could not be treated as an asset on the valuation date, March 31, 1974, as it became refundable only after the provisional assessment on November 6, 1974. The AAC upheld the inclusion, and the Tribunal also rejected the assessee's contention, treating the excess advance tax as a deposit with the government and an asset of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that section 214(1) of the Income Tax Act (I.T. Act) provides for interest on excess advance tax, indicating it constitutes an asset chargeable to wealth-tax. The court examined precedents, including Joint Official Liquidators of the Peerdan Juharmal Bank v. CIT [1954] 25 ITR 140 and Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. CIT [1958] 33 ITR 579, which rejected the notion of advance tax as a deposit. The court also considered the Gujarat High Court's decision in CWT v. Arvindbhai Chinubhai [1982] 133 ITR 800, which held that advance tax paid results in the discharge of a personal liability and cannot be converted into an asset. However, the court disagreed with this reasoning, stating that advance tax paid is a tentative payment towards a contingent liability and should be treated as an asset. Section 219 of the I.T. Act supports this view by providing for credit to the assessee for advance tax paid at the time of regular assessment. Thus, the court upheld the Tribunal's conclusion, answering question No. 2 in the affirmative and against the assessee. Conclusion: The court affirmed that: 1. The debt of Rs. 52,485 owed to the Life Insurance Corporation of India cannot be deducted from the aggregate value of the assessee's assets for computing net taxable wealth. 2. The excess advance tax of Rs. 11,676 constitutes an asset chargeable to wealth-tax. The court granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court due to differing opinions between this court and the Gujarat High Court on the second issue, allowing for an authoritative ruling from the Supreme Court.
|
