1972 (5) TMI 11 - HC - Wealth-tax

Whether debts due to the assessee from Sri A. K. Hazra and Sri N. Sahay, on the basis of the usufructuary mortgage held by the assessee, constituted assets in its hands and comprise part of its wealth? - Tribunal was in error in excluding the two sums of money due from A. K. Hazra and N. Sahai altogether from the assessee s net wealth. These two dues must, however, be valued under section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act and in valuing these dues it must be considered whether the assessee could obtain decrees on his rent notes and sue for possession based on them. No facts were considered by the Tribunal in excluding these two dues from the net wealth of the assessee and the answer to this question cannot be given in any further detail

Issues Involved:
1. Whether debts of Rs. 9,000 and Rs. 13,011 due to the assessee from two individuals on the basis of usufructuary mortgage constituted assets.
2. Whether compensation payable under the Bihar Land Reforms Act is an 'asset' for inclusion in net wealth.
3. Whether sums due under decrees against two individuals constitute the assessee's wealth.
4. Whether the sum of Rs. 32,266 due as agricultural income-tax is deductible in arriving at the assessee's total wealth.
5. Whether various sums due from multiple individuals fall for assessment without the issue of zamindari bonds and constitute part of the assessee's wealth.
6. Whether the sum of Rs. 1,80,000 received by the assessee in 1961 constitutes part of his wealth.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1:
Question: Whether debts of Rs. 9,000 and Rs. 13,011 due to the assessee from Sri A. K. Hazra and Sri N. Sahay, respectively, on the basis of the usufructuary mortgage held by the assessee, constituted assets in its hands and comprise part of its wealth.

Analysis:
The Tribunal initially excluded these sums from the assessee's net wealth, citing that under section 68 of the Transfer of Property Act, no mortgage suit could be filed. However, the Supreme Court in Mathuralal v. Keshar Bai clarified that the mortgagee could sue for the amount due under the rent note and take possession. Therefore, these sums must be valued under section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act.

Conclusion: The Tribunal erred in excluding these sums; they must be considered assets and valued accordingly.

Issue 2:
Question: Whether compensation payable under the Bihar Land Reforms Act is an 'asset' which could be included in the assessee's net wealth as defined in section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act.

Analysis:
The court held that the compensation payable under the Bihar Land Reforms Act is indeed an asset. This was affirmed by referencing Maharajkumar Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, where it was held that such rights must be valued under section 7 of the Act.

Conclusion: The compensation payable is an asset and must be valued accordingly.

Issue 3:
Question: Whether the sums of Rs. 1,11,747 and Rs. 51,525 due to the assessee under decrees against Sris A. H. Lal and D. D. Tulsi constitute his wealth for the purpose of the Wealth-tax Act.

Analysis:
The decrees were initially valued at their full amounts by the Wealth-tax Officer. However, the court noted that the valuation did not consider the hazards of realization. The decrees should be valued under section 7(1) of the Act, which requires estimating the price they would fetch if sold in the open market, taking into account the difficulties in realization.

Conclusion: The decrees were not correctly valued; the correct valuation must consider the potential difficulties in realization.

Issue 4:
Question: Whether the sum of Rs. 32,266, the amount of agricultural income-tax due from the assessee, falls for deduction in the hands of the assessee in arriving at his total wealth.

Analysis:
The court referenced a Full Bench decision in Maharajkumar Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, which held that such liabilities must be considered in valuing the assets under section 7(1) of the Act. The liability for agricultural income-tax must be deducted as it affects the market value of the assets.

Conclusion: The sum of Rs. 32,266 is deductible in arriving at the assessee's total wealth.

Issue 5:
Question: Whether various sums due from multiple individuals fall for assessment in the hands of the assessee without the issue of any zamindari bonds and constitute part of his wealth.

Analysis:
The court found that the Wealth-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Tribunal had erroneously valued these claims. The correct approach should be to ascertain the price that a reasonable person would pay for these claim decrees on the relevant date, considering the compensation the debtors would receive under the Bihar Land Reforms Act.

Conclusion: The sums due from multiple individuals are assets but were valued incorrectly. They must be revalued considering the potential realization difficulties.

Issue 6:
Question: Whether the sum of Rs. 1,80,000 received by the assessee in 1961 constitutes a part of his wealth.

Analysis:
The court confirmed that the bond for Rs. 1,80,000 received by the assessee in 1961 constitutes part of his wealth for the assessment year 1961-62.

Conclusion: The sum of Rs. 1,80,000 is correctly included in the assessee's wealth for the year 1961-62.

Final Conclusion:
The references are answered accordingly, with the court providing specific guidance on the correct valuation methods and considerations for each issue.

← Previous Next →