1978 (9) TMI 3 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in directing the Wealth-tax Officer to give deduction of the income-tax payable on disclosed assets in computing the assessee's net wealth?

Analysis:
The High Court judgment dealt with the issue of whether the Tribunal was correct in directing the Wealth-tax Officer to allow a deduction for income tax payable on assets disclosed by the assessee in computing the net wealth. The assessee voluntarily disclosed a sum of Rs. 15,20,000 under the Finance Act, 1965, after the relevant valuation date. The Wealth-tax Officer included a portion of the disclosed asset in the net wealth assessment, which was contested by the assessee. The Tribunal eventually allowed the deduction of income tax payable on the disclosed asset, albeit at the rate prescribed under the relevant Finance Act. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax challenged this decision, arguing that the tax liability on the disclosed assets was unascertainable and hence the deduction was illegal. However, the court held that wealth tax is levied on net wealth, which is the aggregate value of assets minus debts owed. The Supreme Court precedent established that income tax liability on assets constitutes a debt owed by the assessee. In this case, since the assets were disclosed and taxed before the valuation date, there was a perfected debt of income tax on the valuation date. Therefore, the deduction of income tax payable on the disclosed assets was justified.

The court distinguished the present case from the Gujarat High Court decision cited by the Commissioner, emphasizing that the deduction allowed in this case was based on the income tax payable on the disclosed assets as a debt owed on the valuation date. The court rejected the argument that the tax liability was unascertainable, as income tax liability is a present obligation even if quantified later. The court concluded that since the assets were disclosed and taxed before the valuation date, there was a perfected debt of income tax owed by the assessee on the valuation date. Therefore, the deduction of income tax payable on the disclosed assets was legitimate and in accordance with the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act.

The judgment also highlighted that the Tribunal's finding that the disclosed amount was the assessee's secreted income in the relevant assessment year was a factual determination and not perverse. This finding further supported the inclusion of income tax payable on the disclosed amount as a debt owed by the assessee on the valuation date. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction of income tax payable on the disclosed assets in computing the net wealth. The judgment concluded that there would be no order as to costs in this matter.