1993 (8) TMI 128 - AT - Wealth-tax

Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Chargeable To Tax, Failure To Disclose, Net Wealth, Original Assessment, Valuation Date

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of initiation of proceedings under section 17.
2. Application of section 21(1A).
3. Valuation of beneficiary's interest and the corpus of the trust.
4. Exemption under section 5(1)(xii).
5. Deduction for cumulative tax liabilities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Initiation of Proceedings under Section 17:

The assessee contended that the initiation of proceedings under section 17(1)(a) was invalid due to three main reasons: (1) the same wealth was assessed in the hands of the main trust, (2) there was no omission or failure on the part of the assessee, and (3) there was double assessment of the wealth. The assessee argued that protective assessments are not permissible, citing the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in Smt. Dayabai v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 248. Further, the assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Oil Corpn. v. ITO [1986] 159 ITR 956, asserting that the assessee was not obligated to suggest possible inferences to the Wealth-tax Officer. Additionally, the assessee referred to Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1, and ITO v. Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 393, to argue that an error of judgment cannot justify the initiation of proceedings under section 17(1)(a).

The Tribunal found that the initiation of proceedings was justified. The assessee's failure to file returns for the net wealth representing the remainder/residuary interest under section 21(1A) constituted an omission or failure for the purposes of section 17(1)(a). The Tribunal held that the Wealth-tax Officer was correct in invoking section 17(1)(a) due to the assessee's non-disclosure of wealth assessable under section 21(1A).

2. Application of Section 21(1A):

The assessee argued that section 21(1A) was not applicable due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as the corpus of the trust was notionally distributed and the life interest value was nil. The assessee contended that the assessment based on the bifurcation of the value of the corpus into remaindermen's interest and remainder corpus was not warranted. The departmental representative countered that the trustees were liable to be assessed only on the value of the interest of the beneficiaries, as per the Supreme Court decision in CWT v. Trustees of HEH Nizam's Family (Remainder Wealth) Trust [1977] 108 ITR 555.

The Tribunal agreed with the departmental authorities, stating that the value of the residuary interest is to be arrived at after deducting the interest of the beneficiaries based on actuarial valuation. The Tribunal emphasized that the actuarial valuation is the most scientific method recognized under accounting principles and by the courts.

3. Valuation of Beneficiary's Interest and the Corpus of the Trust:

Both parties agreed that the issues related to the valuation of beneficiary's interest and the corpus of the trust were covered by the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in WTO v. Trustees of HEH the Nizam's Jewellery Trust 35 ITD 402. The Tribunal held that the value of the jewellery should be taken at 50% of the amount estimated by the departmental valuer, deduction under section 5(1)(xii) should be granted on seven items of jewellery, and deduction for cumulative tax liability is to be allowed under section 2(m) of the Act.

4. Exemption under Section 5(1)(xii):

The Tribunal's decision in WTO v. Trustees of HEH the Nizam's Jewellery Trust 35 ITD 402 covered the exemption under section 5(1)(xii). The Tribunal held that the deduction under section 5(1)(xii) should be granted on seven items of jewellery.

5. Deduction for Cumulative Tax Liabilities:

The Tribunal's decision in WTO v. Trustees of HEH the Nizam's Jewellery Trust 35 ITD 402 also covered the deduction for cumulative tax liabilities. The Tribunal held that deduction for cumulative tax liability is to be allowed under section 2(m) of the Act.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objections, upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 17(1)(a) and the applicability of section 21(1A). The Tribunal found that the departmental authorities were justified in their actions and that the assessee's contentions lacked merit. The Tribunal's decision was based on established legal principles and precedents, affirming the assessments made by the Wealth-tax Officer.

← Previous Next →