1978 (6) TMI 51 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of deduction u/s 5(1)(iv-a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
2. Ownership and interest in agricultural land by a partner in a firm.
3. Method of deduction in the computation of net wealth of the firm under rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules.

Summary:

1. Admissibility of Deduction u/s 5(1)(iv-a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957:
The primary issue was whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 1,50,000 u/s 5(1)(iv-a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72. The Tribunal had held in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction. The department contended that the deduction could only be given when the value of agricultural land belonging to the assessee was included in the net wealth, arguing that the assessee's interest in the firm, which included both movable and immovable properties, did not qualify as agricultural land.

2. Ownership and Interest in Agricultural Land by a Partner in a Firm:
The department argued that the immovable property, once brought into the partnership, became the property of the firm, transforming the proprietary right of the assessee into a contractual right. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, it was asserted that the right in the partnership firm was movable property. However, the assessee contended that a firm is not a legal entity and that the property owned by it is essentially the property of the partners. The Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. R. M. Chidambaram Pillai was cited to support the view that the partners retained ownership of the agricultural land, thus qualifying for the deduction.

3. Method of Deduction in the Computation of Net Wealth of the Firm u/r 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules:
The method of deducting Rs. 1,50,000 in the computation of the wealth of the firm under rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules was discussed. The High Court of Madras in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Vasantha had adopted this method, which was accepted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. However, the court noted that the deduction u/s 5(1)(iv-a) should be in the computation of the net wealth of the assessee, not the firm. The Tribunal's direction to give the deduction in the hands of the assessee was upheld.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the Tribunal's view that the assessee was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 1,50,000 u/s 5(1)(iv-a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, affirming that the assessee owned the agricultural land and was entitled to the deduction. The question referred was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, with parties bearing their own costs.