1973 (5) TMI 19 - HC - Wealth-tax

(1) Whether Tribunal was right in holding that in computing the net assets of W.H. Harton & Co. Ltd. for the purpose of determining the break-up value of its shares the sum of Rs. 61,800 being the amount of proposed dividend should be allowed as a deduction ? (2) Whether, Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the assessee was not the owner of 32,440 shares of Rohtas Industries Ltd. ? (3) If the answer to the question No. 2 is in the negative, then whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that in respect of the shares of Rohtas Industries Ltd., only a sum of Rs. 1,63,200 should be included in the net wealth of the assessee? In the premises, the question No. (2) will have to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and in that view the question No. (3) does not arise. But we must make it clear that the assessee was the owner of the sum of Rs. 1,63,200 and the money belonged to the assessee. In any view of the matter, therefore, in respect of this money the assessee was the owner and it belonged to the assessee and it had been rightly included in the net wealth of the assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of proposed dividend in computing net assets.
2. Ownership of shares of Rohtas Industries Ltd.
3. Inclusion of the value of shares in the net wealth of the assessee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deduction of Proposed Dividend in Computing Net Assets:
The first issue was whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the deduction of Rs. 61,800, the amount of proposed dividend, in computing the net assets of W.H. Harton & Co. Ltd. for determining the break-up value of its shares. The court referenced prior decisions in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Smt. Radha Debi M. Nopany and Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Mohan Lai Nopany, as well as the Supreme Court decision in Kishanlal Haricharan v. Income-tax Officer. Based on these precedents, the court answered the question in the negative and in favor of the revenue, indicating that the proposed dividend should not be deducted in computing net assets.

2. Ownership of Shares of Rohtas Industries Ltd.:
The second issue revolved around whether the assessee was the owner of 22,440 shares of Rohtas Industries Ltd. The assessee had shown these shares as her property in previous assessment years but claimed they were lost in 1954. The Wealth-tax Officer included the value of these shares in the net wealth of the assessee, but the Tribunal held that the assessee was not the owner as the shares were lost and a criminal case was pending. The Tribunal concluded that only Rs. 1,63,200, the amount financed by the assessee for acquiring right shares, should be included in the net wealth.

The court examined the legal position of a shareholder with blank transfer deeds, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Howrah Trading Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. It was noted that the assessee had only an equitable right, not legal ownership, of the shares. The court also considered the decision in Smt. Sumitra Devi Jalan v. Satya Narayan Prahladka, which discussed the transfer of shares with blank transfer deeds and the concept of equitable ownership.

Given the facts, the court determined that the assessee was not the legal owner of the 22,440 shares but had an equitable right, which was in jeopardy due to the loss of the shares. Therefore, it was concluded that these shares did not belong to the assessee on the relevant valuation date.

3. Inclusion of Value of Shares in Net Wealth:
The third issue, contingent on the second, was whether the Tribunal was justified in including only Rs. 1,63,200 in the net wealth instead of Rs. 4,69,894. Since the court concluded that the assessee was not the owner of the shares, this question did not arise. However, it was clarified that the assessee was the owner of the Rs. 1,63,200 financed for acquiring right shares, and this amount was rightly included in the net wealth.

Conclusion:
The court answered the second question in the affirmative, indicating that the assessee was not the owner of the shares, and thus the third question did not arise. The first question was answered in the negative, favoring the revenue. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

← Previous Next →