9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date and that the aforesaid items cannot be included in the wealth-tax assessments and are to be deleted ?" The respondent is an assessee to wealth-tax. He is a partner of Geo Sea Foods. We are concerned with the wealth-tax assessment of the respondent/assessee for the year 1974-75. The relevant valuation date is March 31, 1974. For the same assessment year (1974-75), the Income-tax Officer has included the following four items in the total income of the assessee : (i) 1/5th share in inflation of purchases and general expenses in the case of Geo Sea Foods. Rs. 25,538 (ii) 1/5th share in suppression of closing stock of Geo Sea Foods. Rs. 88,694 (iii) 1/5th share of import licence premium of Geo Sea Foods Rs. 6,446 (iv) 1/5th share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssable as wealth under the Wealth-tax Act as well. Counsel for the Revenue further stressed that the intangible additions made in the income-tax assessment are for the same year 1974-75 and once such additions are considered to be part of the real income of the assessee, it cannot admit of any doubt that they will form part of the "assets" on the relevant valuation date under the Wealth-tax Act. On the other hand, counsel for the assessee contended that the additions made or available in a concrete form are only intangible on the relevant valuation date and so the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that such intangible additions cannot be held to be assets on the relevant valuation date. On hearing the rival pleas, we are of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1959-60 were available with him on any later date, in part or whole, as his asset, and there was no presumption that the "whole income" or any part of it continued as an asset of the assessee. There was no material whatever to indicate that there were any assets other than those disclosed in existence on the valuation dates. In other words, this court held that there is no presumption that the intangible additions made in the income-tax assessments for the earlier years was available or continued to be available to the assessee on the valuation dates of the later years. This decision was approved by the Supreme Court in CWT v. J. K. Cotton Manufacturers Ltd. [1984] 146 ITR 552, 560. The Supreme Court held that the aforesaid decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
