1971 (9) TMI 29 - HC - Wealth-tax

Interim compensation paid to assessee when govt. acquires the land - held that such interim compensation an be treated as an asset within the meaning of S.2(e) for wealth-tax purposes contention of the assessee that the unpaid agricultural income-tax as a debt was deductible while computing his net wealth, is not acceptable

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount of compensation payable to the assessee under the Bihar Land Reforms Act constituted an "asset" within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act.
2. Whether the sums of agricultural income-tax outstanding from the assessee for more than 12 months were deductible as debts owed by the assessee in computing his net wealth under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act.
3. Whether the Tribunal was right in including in the assessee's net wealth a positive figure on account of zamindari compensation without considering the arrears of agricultural income-tax.
4. Whether the amended section 2(m)(iii) prohibiting deduction of unpaid agricultural income-tax outstanding for more than 12 months while computing the assessee's net wealth was ultra vires of the Indian Constitution.
5. Whether the arrear agricultural income-tax due from the assessee in relation to his zamindari property is a "debt" which is not liable to be deducted by virtue of sub-clause (ii) of clause (m) of section 2 of the Act irrespective of whether such an arrear was outstanding for more than twelve months or for a lesser period.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Compensation as an Asset
The court examined whether the compensation payable to the assessee under the Bihar Land Reforms Act could be considered an "asset" under section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act. The court referred to a previous judgment in Maharajkumar Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, where it was held that the right to receive compensation under the Bihar Land Reforms Act constituted an asset. The court observed that the right to receive compensation arises immediately upon the vesting of the estate and remains unabated until payment. The court concluded that the right to receive compensation is a right relating to property and thus falls within the definition of "assets" under section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act. Therefore, this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue 2: Deductibility of Agricultural Income-Tax
The court considered whether the sums of agricultural income-tax outstanding for more than 12 months were deductible as debts owed by the assessee under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act. The court cited the previous decision in Maharajkumar Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, which held that agricultural income-tax outstanding for more than 12 months could not be included in the debts for calculating net wealth. The court rejected the assessee's argument that the expression "any law relating to taxation of income or profits" should be interpreted to include only Central Acts, noting that the language of the statute was clear and included all laws relating to taxation of income or profits, whether enacted by the Central or State legislatures. Therefore, this issue was also decided against the assessee.

Issue 3: Inclusion of Zamindari Compensation
The court addressed whether the Tribunal was correct in including a positive figure for zamindari compensation in the assessee's net wealth without considering the arrears of agricultural income-tax. The court noted that section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act requires the value of any asset to be estimated as the price it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. The court found that the restrictions and disadvantages attached to the right to receive compensation under the Bihar Land Reforms Act would affect its market value. The court concluded that the taxing authority erred in assessing the ad interim compensation at 65% of the face value without considering these restrictions. Thus, this issue was decided in favor of the assessee.

Issue 4: Constitutionality of Section 2(m)(iii)
The court held that it could not entertain the question of whether section 2(m)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, which prohibits the deduction of unpaid agricultural income-tax outstanding for more than 12 months, was ultra vires of the Indian Constitution. The court cited the principle that questions of ultra vires are foreign to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and cannot be referred to the High Court in a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. Therefore, this issue was not entertainable.

Issue 5: Agricultural Income-Tax as a Debt
The court noted that the question of whether arrear agricultural income-tax due from the assessee is a "debt" not liable to be deducted irrespective of whether it was outstanding for more than twelve months or for a lesser period was misconceived. The court observed that agricultural income-tax is not secured on or incurred in relation to any property in respect of which wealth-tax is not chargeable under the Act. Therefore, this issue did not require an answer.

Conclusion:
- Question Nos. (i) and (ii) were answered against the assessee.
- Question No. (iii) was answered in favor of the assessee.
- Question No. (iv) was not entertainable.
- Question No. (v) was misconceived and did not require an answer.

The references were answered accordingly, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →