9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (8) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t owed - - - - - Dated:- 29-8-1972 - Judge(s) : G. RAMANUJAM., V. RAMASWAMY. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by RAMANUJAM J.- The assessee in this case owned movable and immovable properties. He was also running a mctor bus service under the name and style of " K. Ratna Motor Service ". He was also a partner in a firm called "Ratna Studio". In respect of the valuation date, March 31, 1957, he filed a return under the Wealth-tax Act showing a net wealth of Rs. 2,42,692. The assessee had claimed, among other things, a deduction of Rs. 1,67,279 as representing the liability for payment of income-tax in respect of the assessment years 1955-56 to 1957-58. The Wealth-tax Officer held that this amount did not represent a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act of all the assets, whereever located, belonging to the assessee on the valuation date, including assets required to be included in his net wealth as on that date under this Act, is in excess of the aggregate value of all the debts owed by the assessee on the valuation date other than, ...... (iii) the amount of the tax, penalty or interest payable in consequence of any order passed under or in pursuance of this Act or any law relating to taxation of income or profits, or the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957, or the Gift-tax Act, 1958-- (a) which is outstanding on the valuatioin date and is claimed by the assessee in appeal revision or oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated, the Tribunal, without giving any specific finding as to whether the amounts in respect of which deduction is claimed were outstanding on the valuation date, has generally stated that the assessee has been disputing the assessments and as such the liability cannot be taken as debts owed. As regards the assessment year 1957-58, the assessment under the Income-tax Act itself came to be made after the valuation date. But, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Walth-tax , there was a present liability to pay tax for that assessment year, though the tax was payable after it was quantified in accordance with ascertainable data in the assessment year, that liability to pay in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entire tax liability had been disputed, unless the appeal filed by him covers the entire amount of income assessed in his hands. Therefore, it has to be enquired into as to what was the quantum of tax liability disputed by the assessee in the appeal. But the Tribunal, as already stated, has not made any distinction between the various years and has not dealt with the question independently for each of the years, nor has it ascertained the amount of tax disputed in the appeals filed by the assessee. It has not also considered the relevancy of the date of filing of the appeals vis-a-vis the valuation date. Having regard to the fact that we cannot sustain the ground on which the Tribunal disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
