9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether tax paid by an assessee on the basis of his voluntary disclosure under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, is an allowable deduction in the computation of his net wealth under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Allowability of Deduction for Tax Paid on Voluntary Disclosure: The primary question was whether the tax paid by an assessee on a voluntary disclosure under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, could be deducted when computing the assessee's net wealth under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The facts established that the assessee made a voluntary disclosure of Rs. 2 lakhs with accrued interest of Rs. 3,716 on May 25, 1965, and paid the corresponding tax on May 26, 1965. The Wealth-tax Officer included the entire disclosed amount in the assessee's wealth, as the disclosure and tax payment occurred after the relevant valuation date. The assessee appealed, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1966] 59 ITR 767, arguing that the tax liability should be deductible. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed, but the revenue's subsequent appeal to the Tribunal was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the income-tax liability on the disclosed income was a debt deductible in computing net wealth. Relevant Legal Provisions and Precedents: - Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: This section outlines the charge of income-tax on the total income of the previous year. - Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965: This section allows for voluntary disclosure of undisclosed income, charging a tax of 60% on the disclosed amount. - Section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957: Defines "net wealth" and includes provisions for deducting debts owed by the assessee on the valuation date. Supreme Court Decision in Kesoram Industries: The Supreme Court in Kesoram Industries held that a liability to pay income-tax is a present liability, even if it becomes payable later. The tax liability arises on the last day of the accounting year, making it a perfected debt and not a contingent liability. Arguments and Judicial Reasoning: The revenue argued that section 68 imposed a new tax distinct from the regular income-tax, which became chargeable only upon the declaration by the assessee. They cited several cases, including: - T. V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax [1969] 72 ITR 107 (Mad): Distinguished between liabilities arising under sections 3 and 4 of the Income-tax Act and those under section 23A. - C. K. Babu Naidu v. Wealth-tax Officer [1971] 82 ITR 410 (Ker): Held that tax paid under section 68 was not a debt owed on the valuation date. - Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigara [1974] 93 ITR 288 (Guj): Concluded that section 68 imposed a new tax chargeable independently of the Income-tax Act. - Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Girdhari Lal [1975] 99 ITR 79 (Delhi): Held that tax liability on disclosed income under section 68 was a debt owed and deductible under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act. Court's Conclusion: The court rejected the revenue's arguments, agreeing with the Delhi High Court's reasoning in Girdhari Lal. It held that section 68 did not impose a new tax but allowed for the compounding of existing tax liability. The disclosed amount was already liable to be assessed as income, and the tax paid on this amount was deductible in computing net wealth under section 2(m). The court emphasized that the principles laid down in Kesoram Industries applied, as the liability to pay tax on undisclosed income was a present liability, becoming payable either upon discovery or voluntary disclosure. Final Judgment: The court answered the question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee. The tax paid pursuant to a voluntary disclosure under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, after the valuation date, was deductible in computing the net wealth under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. There was no order as to costs.
|
