9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (3) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ock-in-trade (textiles in the business carried on by him. Incomes-tax and wealth-tax payable thereon amounted to Rs, 1,06,250 and Rs. 6,405 respectively. Rs. 10,000 being part of the income-tax and Rs. 6,405 being the wealth-tax payable was paid along with the declaration. Rs. 86,250 and Rs. 10,000 being the balance of income-tax payable were remitted on 30th Dec., 1975 and 12th July, 1976 respectively. 3. The assessee filed the return disclosing wealth of Rs. 6,67,800 for the asst. yr. 1976-77, the relevant valuation date being 16th Aug., 1975. In doing so, he had included Rs. 2,50,000 being the value of his stock as stated above but had claimed deduction of Rs. 1,12,655 being the income-tax and wealth-tax payable in respect thereof. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should have been allowed. He relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in C.K. Babu Naidu vs. WTO, "A" Ward Calicut(1), in support of his claim. 6. The departmental representative contended that the liability in question arose only when the assessee filed a declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance of 1975 and such declaration was filed only on 22nd Dec., 1975, that is to say, subsequent to the relevant valuation date, the deduction claimed should not be allowed. He has placed reliance upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Wealth tax vs. Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigara(2), where it was held that in the computation of net wealth the liability in respect of income disclosed under s. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but which had escaped assessment on account of the assessee's failure. Such income when declared was to be assessed as per schedule to the Voluntarily Disclosure Act instead of the normal rates applicable to income under the respective Finance Acts. This is because of the non obstante provision in the above section. But nevertheless the tax imposed is on income. 8. In C.K Babu Naidu vs. WTO, 'A' Ward, Calicut (1), the question for consideration was whether the tax liability in respect of income disclosed under s. 68 of the Finance Act, 1965 could be considered as a debt owed on the relevant valuation date for the purpose of computing the net wealth assessable under the WT Act. The Kerala High Court answered the question in the affirmati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
