1967 (8) TMI 31 - HC - Wealth-tax

Computation of the net wealth - arrears of tax payable to department - Initial Depreciation - deductibility

Summary

Issues:
1. Deductibility of provision for taxes in the computation of net wealth for specific years.
2. Disallowance of initial depreciation difference in the computation of net wealth.
3. Deductibility of arrears of tax payable to the department in the computation of net wealth for specific years.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the deductibility of provisions for taxes in the computation of net wealth for certain years. The court referred to the case law of Kesoram Industries & Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax to determine this issue. The court found in favor of the assessee, stating that the provision for taxes was deductible in the computation of net wealth for the relevant years.

2. The second issue dealt with the disallowance of the initial depreciation difference in the computation of net wealth. The court relied on the same authority, Kesoram Industries & Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, to address this matter. It was concluded that since the assessee had not exhibited a part of the initial depreciation in its balance sheet, the revenue was justified in considering the balance sheet as a true representation of the asset value. Therefore, the court ruled against the assessee on this issue.

3. The final issue involved the deductibility of arrears of tax payable to the department in the computation of net wealth for specific years. The court referenced the case of Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. G.D. Naidu to decide this matter. The court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the sum of Rs. 15 lakhs as on March 31, 1958, but against the assessee for the sum of Rs. 36 lakhs as on March 31, 1957. The court reasoned that as of the latter date, the assessee was disputing the liability, and therefore, it could not be considered a debt for allowance in computing the asset value. Additionally, the court dismissed the argument for reopening the assessment order under section 35(2) as the sum was a result of a settlement, not an appeal or revision against an order.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the assessee on the deductibility of provisions for taxes and the arrears of tax for one year but against the assessee on the initial depreciation difference and the arrears of tax for another year.