1979 (6) TMI 65 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of assets under the Wealth Tax Act.
2. Interpretation of provisions regarding assets transferred to spouse.
3. Validity of re-opening assessments based on change of opinion.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeals by the Revenue challenged the orders of the AAC granting relief regarding assets includible under section 4 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The assessee, an individual, had filed returns of wealth showing amounts advanced to his wife as loans, which were treated as assets. Subsequently, assessments were re-opened under section 17(1)(a) as the house property acquired by the wife with cash from the assessee was not considered in the net wealth. The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of the house property value in the net wealth, leading to the appeals by the Revenue.

2. The AAC held, following a decision of the Bombay High Court, that only the amount transferred by the assessee could be added, not the value of the converted asset. The Revenue contended that the value of assets transferred to the spouse should be added under section 4, including converted property. Citing a Madras High Court decision, the Revenue argued for the inclusion of the converted asset's value. The assessee argued that the re-opening of assessments was invalid and that the value of the converted asset should not be added under section 4.

3. The Tribunal analyzed whether the house property acquired by the wife could be considered an asset indirectly transferred by the assessee. It was concluded that the property was not indirectly transferred as the conversion occurred after the cash transfer was completed. Regarding the inclusion of the converted asset's value, conflicting decisions were discussed. The Tribunal favored the assessee, following the Bombay High Court decision, which held that only the funds transferred should be included under section 4. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals and cross-objections, confirming the AAC's orders. The validity of re-opening assessments based on a change of opinion was not extensively discussed due to the lack of impact on the net wealth assessment.