9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee, a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, is liable to wealth-tax in the status of an individual. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Liability of Trade Union to Wealth-Tax: The primary issue for determination was whether the State Bank of Travancore Employees Union, a registered trade union, is liable to wealth-tax as an individual under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The case was referred to a Special Bench due to differing interpretations in previous Tribunal orders and the lack of direct decisions under the Wealth-tax Act on this matter. The assessee's representative argued that under section 13 of the Indian Trade Unions Act, a registered trade union is a body corporate, which is not an assessable entity under the Wealth-tax Act. He contended that the term 'individual' should only include natural human beings, not artificial persons or bodies corporate. References were made to the Gujarat High Court decision in Orient Club v. WTO [1980] 123 ITR 395 and the Bombay High Court decision in Orient Club v. CWT [1982] 136 ITR 697, which supported the view that certain associations or bodies, unless declared as companies by the CBDT, are not taxable units under the Act. The departmental representative countered that the principles established by the Supreme Court in income-tax cases regarding the status of 'individual' are applicable to wealth-tax assessments. He cited several decisions, including CIT v. Sodra Devi [1957] 32 ITR 615, which held that the term 'individual' includes not only human beings but also groups of persons forming a unit, and corporations created by statute. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that the term 'individual' is broad enough to encompass entities beyond natural persons, including bodies corporate and juristic persons. Key judgments supporting this view included Khan Bahadur Chowakkaran Keloth Mammad Keyi v. WTO [1962] 44 ITR 277 (Ker.), Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn. v. ITO [1963] 47 ITR 101 (AP), and Kerala Financial Corpn. v. WTO [1971] 82 ITR 477 (Ker.). The Tribunal further observed that the Wealth-tax Act's charging section does not restrict the term 'individual' to natural persons. It emphasized that the specific mention of entities like HUFs or companies in the Act does not exclude other entities that fall within the broad meaning of 'individual'. The Supreme Court's decision in C.K. Mammed Kayi's case reaffirmed that the term 'individual' includes groups of persons forming a unit, and the specific mention of HUFs does not preclude other entities from being assessed as individuals. The Tribunal distinguished the facts of the Orient Club cases cited by the assessee from the present case. It noted that the assessee, being a registered trade union, is a body corporate with independent legal existence, unlike the unregistered association in the Orient Club cases. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee, a registered trade union, qualifies as an 'individual' under the Wealth-tax Act and is therefore liable to wealth-tax. The objection raised by the assessee was rejected, and the orders of the departmental authorities were upheld. The appeals were dismissed.
|
