1979 (11) TMI 45 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the phrase "held by him" in section 5(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 regarding assets held by the wife of the assessee and included in the total wealth of the assessee by virtue of section 4(1)(a) of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

The case involved a question regarding the interpretation of the phrase "held by him" in section 5(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The assessee, an individual, had gifted a sum to his wife, which she invested in a fixed deposit. The Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) included this amount in the assessee's assets under section 4(1)(a) of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) granted exemption under section 5(1)(xxvi) of the Act, considering the fixed deposit as part of the net wealth of the assessee. However, the Appellate Tribunal disagreed, stating that the phrase "held by him" in section 5(3) does not extend to assets deemed to be held by the assessee under section 4(1) of the Act.

The Appellate Tribunal emphasized that the legal fiction created in section 4(1) was for the purpose of including certain assets in the net wealth of the assessee, and once that purpose was fulfilled, the legal fiction could not be extended for granting exemptions under section 5(1)(xxvi) read with section 5(3) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the AAC erred in granting the exemption and restored the order of the WTO. The matter was then referred to the High Court for consideration.

The High Court analyzed the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Act, highlighting that section 4 deals with the inclusion of assets in the net wealth, while section 5 covers exemptions. The court referred to a Madras High Court decision where it was held that the intention of Parliament was not to penalize the assessee by subjecting them to a more onerous position than if the asset had been treated as theirs for all purposes. The court agreed with this view and rejected the contention that applying the legal fiction violated any legal principles.

The Court further discussed the provision of section 5(3) of the Act, emphasizing that the requirement in sub-section (3) was the period for which the asset should be held, not necessarily by the assessee. The Court agreed with the AAC's interpretation that the assessee was entitled to the exemption for the asset in question. Therefore, the Court held that the Tribunal was incorrect in its interpretation of the phrase "held by him" in section 5(3) of the Act concerning assets held by the wife of the assessee and included in the total wealth of the assessee by virtue of section 4(1)(a) of the Act.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the exemption and awarded costs of the reference to the assessee.