9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Assessability of executors to wealth-tax for the assessment years 1961-62 to 1963-64. 2. Applicability of Section 19(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. 3. Retrospective application of Section 19A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Detailed Analysis 1. Assessability of Executors to Wealth-Tax for the Assessment Years 1961-62 to 1963-64 The primary issue was whether wealth-tax assessments upon the executors to the estate of Sir Edward C. Benthal for the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63, and 1963-64 were legally made. The Appellate Tribunal had set aside the assessment, holding that the executors were not assessable under the Act due to Sir Edward's death before the valuation date. The court agreed with this view, noting that Section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act imposes a charge on the net wealth of an individual on the corresponding valuation date. Since Sir Edward was not alive on the valuation date, he ceased to be an individual within the meaning of this section, and thus, there could be no charge on his properties on the relevant valuation date. 2. Applicability of Section 19(2) of the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 The court examined whether the executors could be taxed under Section 19(2) of the Act, which applies when a person dies without having furnished a return or after having furnished an incorrect or incomplete return. The court concluded that Section 19(2) is only applicable under two circumstances: (i) no return was filed by the deceased under Section 14 before his death, and (ii) the return furnished was incorrect or incomplete. Since Sir Edward died before the valuation date, the charge under Section 3 did not accrue, and therefore, no return was required. Consequently, no notice under Section 14(2) could be issued or served on his executor, making Section 19(2) inapplicable in this case. 3. Retrospective Application of Section 19A of the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 The court also addressed the argument regarding the retrospective application of Section 19A, which was introduced by the Wealth-tax (Amendment) Act, 1964, effective from April 1, 1965. Section 19A(1) created a charge on the net wealth of a deceased person's estate, enforceable against the estate in the hands of the executors. However, the court noted that Section 19A does not state that it shall be deemed to have come into force on April 1, 1957, nor does it suggest retrospective operation. Therefore, the court rejected the contention that Section 19A was in operation retrospectively from April 1, 1957. The court referenced the case of Jamnadas v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax [1965] 56 ITR 648 (Bom), where the Bombay High Court held that executors were not liable to be assessed for the assessment year 1961-62, and any notice issued was without jurisdiction. The court also cited the Madras High Court's decision in M. Thirumani Mudaliar v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax [1974] 96 ITR 152 (Mad), which stated that Section 19 created a liability on executors only for a limited purpose, and it was only after the introduction of Section 19A that executors became liable to be taxed as persons representing the deceased. The court distinguished the Wealth-tax Act from the Income-tax Act, noting that the schemes and subject-matters of their respective charges are different. The charge under the Wealth-tax Act is on the net wealth of an individual on the corresponding valuation date, whereas the charge under the Income-tax Act is on the total income of the assessee for the entire accounting year. In conclusion, the court held that the executors could not be assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment years in question because there was no provision in the Act prior to its amendment in 1964 that imposed such liability. Section 19A was not retrospective but prospective, and therefore, the executors could not be assessed even in the year of Sir Edward's death. The court answered the question in the negative and in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs. Separate Judgment by Dipak Kumar Sen Dipak Kumar Sen J. concurred with the judgment but added that the Wealth-tax Act, as it stood before the introduction of Section 19A, contemplated the assessment of an existing individual. He highlighted that if an individual ceased to exist before the valuation date, the wealth could not be assessed as belonging to the deceased individual under Section 19(2) and also as the estate of the deceased under Section 19A. The charging section, Section 3, clearly indicates that only an existing individual in possession of wealth on the valuation date can be assessed. Thus, the construction suggested by the revenue was not acceptable.
|
