9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to notices under section 17 of the W.T. Act for alleged wealth tax evasion by a non-proprietary members' club and the jurisdiction of the notices.
Jurisdiction Challenge: The petition by the Willingdon Sports Club, Bombay, contested the notices issued under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, alleging that the club, being a non-proprietary members' club, was not a taxable unit under section 3 of the Act. The club argued that it was not liable for wealth tax as it was assessed for income tax as an association of persons, which was not a taxable entity under section 3. Additionally, the club had previously communicated to the Income Tax Officer its belief that it was not liable for wealth tax as per the Act, but received no response confirming or refuting this stance. The club contended that the assets could not be deemed to have escaped assessment due to its failure to file a wealth tax return. Trustees' Liability: The Revenue, in response, argued that the club should be treated as an individual for wealth tax purposes, as the property vested in the trustees under rule 7 of the club's rules. This argument was contested by Mr. Dastur, but the court allowed the trustees' liability argument to be raised, emphasizing that no additional facts were needed for this contention. The court examined the club's unincorporated nature and the rules governing the trustees' role in managing the club's property. Ownership of Club's Property: The court analyzed rule 7, which outlined the trustees' responsibilities regarding the club's property, emphasizing that the property's vesting with the trustees did not equate to ownership. The court held that the property belonged to the members of the club, as established in a previous case involving a similar unincorporated members' club. Rule 20 further reinforced that the beneficial interest in the club's property belonged to the members, not the trustees, highlighting the members' ownership rights and lack of transmissible interest in the property. Judgment: Based on the legal position established in previous cases and the interpretation of the club's rules, the court concluded that the notices issued under section 17 and section 14 were without jurisdiction. The court quashed all impugned notices and ruled in favor of the petitioning club, with costs awarded. The court did not delve into other contentions raised, given the lack of jurisdiction in the issuance of the notices.
|
