1966 (12) TMI 4 - HC - Wealth-tax

Whether the loan of Rs. 71, 820 raised on the security of life insurance policies but admittedly utilized in acquiring taxable assets was to be deducted in arriving at the net wealth of the assessee for purposes of the WT Act - Held no

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions of the Wealth-tax Act regarding the treatment of loans secured by life insurance policies in the computation of net wealth.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference under section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act concerning an individual assessee whose wealth was assessed for the year 1959-60. The dispute revolved around a loan of Rs. 71,820 obtained by the assessee against the security of life insurance policies. The assessee contended that this amount should be exempt from net wealth computation under section 5(1)(vi) of the Act, while the department relied on section 2(m)(ii) to argue otherwise. The key contention was whether the loan secured by insurance policies should be deducted from the net wealth of the assessee. The Tribunal framed a question for the court to determine this issue.

The court analyzed the provisions of the Act, emphasizing that the nature of the amount advanced, whether considered a loan or not, was not the primary concern. The critical aspect was that the amount had been converted into taxable assets, which must be included in the net wealth calculation. The court highlighted that only debts could be excluded from net wealth, and since the amount in question had been transformed into assets, it could not enjoy the exemption under section 5(1)(vi) anymore. The judgment underscored that the exemption under the Act was intended to encourage saving through investments in insurance policies, and any withdrawal from such exempted assets would negate the benefit provided by the Act.

Ultimately, the court answered the question in the negative, ruling against the assessee. The judgment clarified that the loan secured by insurance policies fell within the scope of section 2(m)(ii) of the Act and had been converted into assets of a different character, thereby disqualifying it from the exemption under section 5(1)(vi). The court also assessed costs and counsel's fees in relation to the reference.