9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,666 for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, respectively ? 2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to further exemption under section 5(1)(iv) in respect of the individual assets even though the same exemption has been granted while working out the assessee's share of interest in the firm of A. M. K. M. K. Firm, Alorstar ?" The assessee, Sri V. RM. SM. Karuppan Chettiar, is assessed to income-tax as well as wealth-tax. His wealth consisted of movable and immovable properties, situated both in India and outside India. For the assessment year 1975-76, he had filed a return disclosing net wealth of Rs. 4,76,363 and Rs. 4,99,849 for the assessment year 1976-77. In the assessment completed in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion that they are deleting the additions made by the Wealth-tax Officer to the extent of Rs. 55,000 during the assessment year 1975-76 and to the extent of Rs. 36,666 during the assessment year 1976-77. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed. Before us, learned standing counsel appearing for the Department, submitted that in view of the later decision of this court in R. Venkatavaradha Reddiar v. CWT [1995] 214 ITR 76, wherein it was held that a firm has no legal existence and as such it cannot hold any property and it is the partners, who own the partnership property as such, the partners alone should have the benefit of the exemption under section 5(1)(iv) when their individual assessments are taken up to the extent of their resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing authority to ascertain the exemption provided under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act, subject to the limit prescribed under section 5(1A) of the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the exemption available under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act was not ascertained, by applying rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules. According to learned counsel, the Wealth-tax Officer was not correct in stating that 11/30 share in the foreign firm should not be added back in the individual assessment of the assessee. Learned counsel also pointed out that the Wealth-tax Officer was not correct in granting exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act in the hands of the firm, instead of giving such benefit in the hands of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 5(1) of the Act, the proportionate 11/30 share exemption allowed in the case of Alorstar firm of Rs. 1,50,000 during the assessment year 1975-76 and Rs. 1,00,000 during the assessment year 1976-77 had to be withdrawn. Even though the Wealth-tax Officer was correct in allowing exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act as per the limit prescribed under section 5(1A) of the Act during the assessment years under consideration, he is not correct in stating that he would add back the share of exemption available in the foreign firm to the extent of 11/30 share. The Wealth-tax Officer could have taken into account all the exemption available under section 5(1) of the Act and granted exemption only to the extent of the limit prescribed und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
