1985 (5) TMI 101 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the transfer of assets to the HUF.
2. Consideration of the transfer as revocable under Section 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
3. Allowance of liability of Rs. 10,000 on account of a loan from Shri Jage Ram.
4. Exclusion of the value of 25,000 shares of Hindustan Garments Ltd.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Transfer of Assets to the HUF:

The primary issue was whether the wealth amounting to Rs. 2,10,640 should be excluded from the wealth of the assessee due to the alleged transfer to the HUF. The assessee claimed that he had gifted shares and deposits to the HUF through an affidavit dated 30-10-1968. However, the WTO argued that there was no evidence of an actual transfer, as the shares and deposits remained in the name of the assessee, and no formal request for transfer was made to the companies involved. The AAC accepted the affidavit as sufficient evidence of the gift, but the Tribunal noted that the affidavit alone, without further action, did not constitute a valid transfer. The Tribunal concluded that there was no material evidence to support the transfer of assets to the HUF, and thus, the value of the assets should be included in the assessee's wealth.

2. Consideration of the Transfer as Revocable under Section 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957:

The Tribunal also examined whether the transfer, if considered valid, was revocable. The affidavit specified that the dividends and interest from the transferred assets were to be paid to the assessee for ten years. According to Section 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, a transfer is not irrevocable if the transferor derives any direct or indirect benefit. The Tribunal held that since the transferor reserved the right to receive income from the assets for ten years, the transfer was revocable. Therefore, the value of the assets should be included in the assessee's wealth.

3. Allowance of Liability of Rs. 10,000 on Account of a Loan from Shri Jage Ram:

The second issue involved the allowance of a liability of Rs. 10,000 for a loan from Shri Jage Ram. The AAC allowed this liability based on findings in previous income-tax appeals, where the loan was deemed genuine, and the interest claim was accepted. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, declining to interfere with the allowance of the liability.

4. Exclusion of the Value of 25,000 Shares of Hindustan Garments Ltd.:

The final issue concerned the exclusion of the value of 25,000 shares of Hindustan Garments Ltd., which the assessee claimed were purchased on behalf of certain agriculturists. The ITO had not accepted the genuineness of these loans, but in income-tax proceedings, it was determined that the shares were indeed purchased for the benefit of the agriculturists. The Tribunal noted that the shares were later transferred to the agriculturists through a compromise decree before the High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the department's grounds relating to these shares for all the assessment years involved.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in IT Appeal No. 1664 (Delhi) of 1983 and partially allowed the other appeals. The value of the assets was included in the assessee's wealth due to the lack of evidence for a valid transfer and the revocable nature of the transfer. The liability of Rs. 10,000 for the loan from Shri Jage Ram was upheld, and the exclusion of the value of 25,000 shares of Hindustan Garments Ltd. was accepted based on the findings in previous income-tax proceedings.