1983 (5) TMI 45 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Explanation II(ii)(e) to Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957.
2. Computation of market value of unquoted equity shares.
3. Treatment of advance tax and provision for taxation in the balance sheet.
4. Judicial precedents and their applicability.
5. Interpretation of the term "tax payable."

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Explanation II(ii)(e) to Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957:

The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of Explanation II(ii)(e) to Rule 1D, which deals with the computation of the market value of unquoted equity shares by determining the 'net worth' of a company. The rule specifies that certain amounts shown as assets and liabilities in the balance sheet are not to be treated as such for the purpose of this computation. Specifically, the controversy is about whether advance tax paid, shown as an asset, should be deducted from the provision for taxation shown as a liability.

2. Computation of Market Value of Unquoted Equity Shares:

The break-up value method is used to determine the market value of unquoted equity shares, which involves calculating the net worth of the company by subtracting liabilities from the value of assets. Rule 1D prescribes how to compute the value of 'assets' and 'liabilities.' The rule excludes certain amounts from being treated as assets or liabilities, influencing the net worth calculation.

3. Treatment of Advance Tax and Provision for Taxation in the Balance Sheet:

In the case of Advance Paints (P.) Ltd., the balance sheet showed advance tax of Rs. 2.11 lakhs as an asset and provision for taxation of Rs. 2.52 lakhs as a liability. The Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) excluded the advance tax from the total value of assets and adjusted the provision for taxation by deducting the advance tax, resulting in a net provision for taxation of Rs. 41,000. This adjustment increased the net worth of the company, which the assessee contested.

4. Judicial Precedents and Their Applicability:

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) followed earlier Tribunal decisions and the Gujarat High Court's decision in CWT v. Ashok K. Parikh, which held that advance tax paid should not be deducted from the provision for taxation. The Tribunal's earlier decisions were based on the interpretation that the words in Explanation II(ii)(e) did not warrant such an adjustment. The revenue's appeal to the Tribunal led to the formation of a Special Bench to reconsider the issue in light of Supreme Court decisions in CWT v. Sardar Ajaib Singh and CGT v. Sardar Ajaib Singh.

5. Interpretation of the Term "Tax Payable":

The term "tax payable" in Explanation II(ii)(e) was a central point of contention. The revenue argued that it should mean the gross tax computed less taxes already paid, including advance tax. The assessee contended that "tax payable" should be computed without deducting advance tax paid. The Tribunal examined the statutory language and judicial interpretations, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd., which interpreted "tax payable" in a different context.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the words "other than the amount referred to in clause (i)(a)" in Explanation II(ii)(e) referred only to the provision for payment of advance tax, not the advance tax actually paid. Therefore, advance tax paid should not be deducted from the provision for taxation. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, agreeing that the provision for taxation should be the full amount shown in the balance sheet without adjustment for advance tax paid. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed.