9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee was an executor or administrator under the will. 2. Whether the right to receive life insurance amounts should be included in the wealth of the assessee. 3. The valuation of the right to receive the life insurance amounts. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Executor or Administrator: The primary issue was whether the assessee, the widow of the deceased, was an executor or administrator under the will. The learned Departmental Representative argued that the assessee was not an 'administrator' as she was not appointed by a competent authority, nor was she named as an 'executor' in the will. The representative stressed that the assessee did not become an 'executor' by implication, as she was only appointed as a testamentary guardian. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the will made the assessee an 'executrix' by implication. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee could be considered an 'executrix' by implication, as she was managing the properties after the death of the deceased and the will directed her to protect the properties till the children attained majority. The Tribunal also referred to the extended definition of 'executor' in the Explanation to section 19A of the Wealth-tax Act, which includes 'other persons administering the estate of a deceased person.' 2. Inclusion of the Right to Receive Life Insurance Amounts: The second issue was whether the right to receive life insurance amounts should be included in the wealth of the assessee. The ITO included the amount of Rs. 3,95,870 in each of the assessments, which was the amount received in terms of the compromise with LIC. The AAC, however, stated that the matter was concluded by a decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case, where it was held that the assessee could not be assessed in respect of the income from interest as there was no material to conclude that the interest was received as a legatee. The Tribunal agreed with the AAC and held that the value of the right to receive the amounts from LIC could not be included in the hands of the assessee but would be separately taxable under the provisions of section 19A of the Wealth-tax Act. 3. Valuation of the Right to Receive Life Insurance Amounts: The third issue was the valuation of the right to receive the life insurance amounts. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that no value should be included as the LIC had denied liability to pay any amount. Alternatively, he suggested that only a heavily discounted value should be taken. The Tribunal noted that the right to receive the amounts from LIC was property and had to be valued for wealth-tax purposes. The Tribunal considered the time taken for litigation and the possibility of the final decision not being in the assessee's favor. It concluded that the market value could be fixed after allowing for an adequate discount at 30% of the figure of Rs. 3,95,870 in each of the years. However, since the provisions of section 19A were applicable, no portion of the amount was assessable in the hands of the assessee as legatee. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the assessee could be considered an 'executrix' by implication and that the value of the right to receive the amounts from LIC could not be included in the hands of the assessee but would be separately taxable under section 19A. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed, and the amount of Rs. 3,95,870 was directed to be excluded from each of the assessments.
|
