1978 (1) TMI 73 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 regarding transfers by trust deeds.
2. Taxability of properties given in trust by the assessee to his brother under section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.

Detailed Analysis:
The High Court of Calcutta addressed a consolidated reference under sections 27(1) and 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, involving the transfer of assets through trust deeds. The case involved the assessee executing a trust deed conveying properties to his brother for the benefit of the brother's wife and children, while the brother created a similar trust for the assessee's family. The Wealth-tax Officer included the value of assets transferred to the brother in the assessee's net wealth under section 4(1)(a) of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially upheld this decision for certain assessment years but later found the provision not applicable for subsequent years. Both the revenue and the assessee appealed to the Tribunal, which ruled in favor of the assessee, leading to the reference to the High Court.

Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal held that the assets transferred by the trust deed could not be included in the assessee's net wealth under section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Act. The High Court, drawing from a similar case precedent, determined that section 4(1)(a)(iii) is akin to section 16(3)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Citing the judgment in the Commissioner of Income-tax v. A. N. Chowdhury case, the Court concluded that the provision was not applicable to transfers by trust deeds, hence answering the first question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.

As for the second issue, the Court's ruling on the first question rendered the second question moot, and they declined to provide an answer. Additionally, the Court found it unnecessary to address the questions raised under section 27(3) since the crucial clause in the case was clause (iii) of section 4(1)(a) and not other parts of the section. Consequently, the reference was disposed of without any order as to costs, with both judges concurring on the decision.